Darksol the Painbringer's page

Most importantly to this discussion, not all dragons have the Terrifying Presence aura. I love what Paizo has done with dragons, making them less cookie-cutter, tying them to the magical traditions, and providing a diversity of frightening creatures that can fit whatever campaign narrative the GM has in mind! However, assuming that ALL dragons scare the pants off people with a particular aura is demonstrating meta-gaming that I would discourage in my own campaigns. Someone with Recall Knowledge might know that most dragons have that presence, but that’s still a steep RK check.

Dragons in the Premaster having a scary aura is probably about as common as knowing that trolls have regeneration, or ghouls having a paralyzing touch, or lycanthropes being vulnerable to silver. It would be more difficult to ascertain that dragons have spellcasting, trolls having a weakness, ghouls being extremely smart, or certain types of lycanthropes don't have an evil agenda of spreading their curse around to others.

Can we say the same about the new dragons now? Probably not. But that wasn't really the scope of the argument. The core of the discussion is about the illusion of a creature with an interactive external stimulus, of which we can say that the classic dragons all had them.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Bending the rules is purposefully adjusting creature stat blocks to gain specific advantages, such as removing obvious weaknesses or adding immunities to creatures. If I can't do that with a Summon spell as a player, neither can the GM.

Well yes in fact they can. And I don't mean they can break the rules: I mean that the rules themselves support the idea that the GM should modify encounters and stat blocks to meet the needs of the campaign. Paizo writes essentially that at the start of just about every AP, as well as in books like MC. Now, should a GM do the example change you bring up - that's a different question. I would personally avoid adjusting creatures to gain a specific advantage over the PCs. As I said, without some compelling reason to do so, that seems hinky. Bad form. But adjusting creatures as a matter of campaign design, because you want every dragon to be different or whatever? Totally fine, IMO.

I'll also point out that a GM removing frightful presence from a stat block is not granting any sort of 'specific advantage' to the "npc" team.

Quote:

a Troll that doesn't burn up when hit with fire is not a convincing illusion.

Well I'd expect the illusionist to incorporate the fire hit into what the illusion shows, if they are really trying to keep it visually convincing.

Ultimately you're right that there are plenty of actions the PCs can take which will render an illusion's 'fake' nature obvious. I'm not disputing that. However, I would generally not give PCs any sort of automatic illusion-detection based on "book knowledge" that the thing in front of them is different from the stat block for the thing in the Monster Core, because at least in the game worlds I and my friends create, what monsters it is possible to meet doesn't end at the published stat blocks. There are more things in campaign and adventure, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your Monster Core.

Except that the whole point of removing the feature was to gain the advantage of a convincing illusion so that PCs are forced to waste actions interacting with the illusion to disbelieve it, so it being an advantage to add or remove features is subjective to the circumstances present. All I am saying is GMs altering circumstances and statblocks to avoid obvious mechanical pitfalls from other effects is a bad way to GM. It's also especially true if a PC does the same thing; is a GM just going to allow it? Probably not.

Most other illusory spells can do this, and can be recreated with concentration actions sustaining the spell, but that is beyond the scope of the Illusory Creature spell, since it says "If the image is hit by an attack or fails a save, the spell ends." It also gives examples of things being obvious for allowing disbelieve opportunities.

I'm not sure what's "bending the rules" or that a player couldn't do. In fact, they can't create an illusory creature who has an ability the spell doesn't grant.

Why is every character suddenly an expert on dragons?
They aren't all going to know that it's a common dragon ability, they certainly aren't all going to know it's universal (is that even true?), and they might not notice immediately even if they do.

But if they do notice it, it's a clue. The spell already covers what happens when enemies notice clues that it's an illusion. The illusory creature being less dangerous than it looks is even the example in the text!

Also that's... not what a strawman is.

(And I did say that.)

Bending the rules is purposefully adjusting creature stat blocks to gain specific advantages, such as removing obvious weaknesses or adding immunities to creatures. If I can't do that with a Summon spell as a player, neither can the GM. Granted, Illusions aren't Summons, the principle still applies if you want a convincing illusory effect; a Troll that doesn't burn up when hit with fire is not a convincing illusion.

You don't have to be an Expert on Dragons to know that they are innately scary creatures; simply being next to one is intensely and instinctively frightening. Short of being mindless or a sociopath, you can't discount it any more than something that outright stinks when you are near it because you lack a sense of smell, vague as it is. At no point are you an expert on things when you have an external stimulus applying things for you, like seeing a giant bear in the woods. At best the illusion will work if you summon a horse or a dog by a goblin, or a wall in front of an enemy, since this is strictly an internal, non-mechanical interaction. Once you have to invoke creature effects for the target, such as saving throws, it becomes an external mechanical interaction, which the spell does not allow, which creates an opportunity for the illusion to be disbelieved.

So making an illusion of a dragon already throws out disbelieve checks based on the factor that it lacks a Frightful Presence effect, in the same way you summon a creature with a stench aura and it doesn't stink. In that case, why are people arguing otherwise?

A strawman is arguing against something that the person didn't say, nor is the strawman complaint directed at you. At no point did I say "You can't homebrew a fantasy world to work that way," which is what the argument seems to imply. You most certainly can, but not only is that not always implied by everything, but it also defeats the purpose of illusions of established creature archetypes within the setting of Golarion, which is what we are debating about, not the setting of So-and-So's homebrew fantasy world. It's like summoning a skeleton and then saying it's bones are made of adamantine because all skeletons in this universe are combined artificial metallic implants. Not only does that not match with the common definition of the word skeleton, it also doesn't match the archetypical creature depiction in Golarion.

Even if the argument is "The GM can change the rules of the effect to suit their needs," we aren't going to treat houserules as written rules effects, so posing it as a valid rules answer to justify what is effectively GM fudging/cheating isn't exactly helpful when this is more likely to be used by a player, who can't do those things.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

Did you consider maybe buying scrolls?

No access to Ye Olde Magicke Shoppe, so no scrolls to buy.

Yeah, I'm not gonna lie. I understand why the GM might say it's hard to get access to scrolls during that stretch of the AP, but I feel like denying that party access to scrolls of restoration would be incredibly shortsighted. You had no means of accessing it, and it's a spell you really need when you do need it.

Makes it sound like the GM was (probably unintentionally) punishing you for choices that had been tacitly communicated to be fine up until that point. I am just not a fan of that. Like, yeah, the oracle not having condition removal is a bit rough. But you had been fine with that through book 5; punishing you for it this late is a bit ??? to me.

I also really hope the GM was giving you ABP if you didn't have magic shop access. That makes me worry you hadn't had reliable access to magic items since the beginning of book 4 or so, despite how items are dead necessary to keep up with PF2E's power curve. If you were behind on items, that may have only exacerbated all the other issues you were experiencing.

To be clear, this was after that portion of the AP, and honestly, the portion you were talking about prior is, in hindsight, the AP's warning to prepare for that stuff since it became so prevalent there. However, due to the nature of the AP's objectives, even surviving that, we wouldn't have had the time or resources available to retrain and prepare for it. Plus, even planning for it, we were just too low of level for it.

ABP was not in place for this group, but we did get a lot of solid loot after clearing that part of the AP, so affording the stuff wasn't an issue, but having access to it was, since when we came back, we were essentially denied access to Ye Olde Magicke Shoppes.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

That doesn't work because illusory spells do not have the ability to remove or adjust creature stat blocks to suit their needs,

Ah, perhaps I was unclear. I'm saying that if the GM doesn't want the players instantly recognizing illusions due to some monster not matching it's stat block, the GM can fix that by changing regular, non-illusory monsters so that they don't exactly match the written stat block.

Quote:

What I am more surprised about is how nobody has simply said "This type of creature is a poor choice given the circumstances of its purpose, maybe instead create an illusion of something else?"

It depends on how you run your game world, really. In a Golarion where every critter is accurately, exactly and specifically described in lore, then noticing a mismatch to the lore is a perfectly valid way for adventurers to detect illusions...and in such a world, yes, illusion-casters should probably stick to critters that they can 'get right' in terms of noticeable characteristics. But as I suggested above, another option is to populate your world with many variations of each creature. In that sort of Golarion, "this dragon doesn't induce fear" is not necessarily an indication that it's illusory, and illusions can be credible even if they don't exactly match a "standard" monster.

This still comes across as the GM "cheating," simply because Frightful Presence is practically innate to all dragons everywhere, and if the intent is to make this dragon not unlike other dragons, it is already drawing suspicion by nature of it being completely different in that respect, especially since the intent of most illusions is that they are meant to imitate the real thing. Also, the player cannot do this, so it seems dishonest to me for a GM to bend the rules in a way a player could not.

This is a strawman. The point of the question was to wonder why it has to be a creature with an interactive external stimulus like Frightful Presence, simply because it ruins the intended effect of the illusion, which is to trick creatures into believing it's real. Not to make sure that the GM accounts for illusions to replicate Ted the Troll, which has always been possible by the rules. But odds are, Ted the Troll still uses the same statblock as Troy the Troll down the bridge.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

That doesn't work because illusory spells do not have the ability to remove or adjust creature stat blocks to suit their needs, acting like they can or should essentially equates to giving more power to a type of spell than what is listed, which is obviously not intended, or more accurately, is cheating.

I understand with and agree with your general point. However, with Illusory Creature aren't you also quite able to create bespoke combatants, since all the stats are coming from the spell and not from an actual stat block. (Which is different than summoning spells which are absolutely beholded to a pre-defined stat block.)

For instance, say I'm fighting a vampire. Is there anything preventing me from using Illusory Creature to create a guardsman with a silver longsword, just so I can use their silver weakness, even though I can't point to a stat block for a dude with a silver sword?

Yes, but you can't just take existing creatures with noteworthy features and outright remove them to suit your purposes. Saying "I make an illusion of a warrior with a silver weapon" isn't from a specific stat block and has no mechanical implications except for what other creatures perceive it as. Having a creature with a noteworthy aura effect like Frightful Presence has mechanical implications for creatures, and is especially true if they aren't toggleable or selective in some fashion. Summoning creatures with a Stench Aura or something similar likewise creates this issue.

There isn't, but those are completely different things, nor might it be apparent to the vampire that the weapon is made of silver. It could be entirely possible that the vampire doesn't know this and won't react to it, just as it is entirely possible that the vampire is aware and may adjust tactics accordingly.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Our group for Curse of the Crimson Throne actually TPK'd because of a Spontaneous Spellcaster instead of a Prepared one.

If that isn't enough of a reason for Prepared > Spontaneous, then nothing is.

Don't believe this in the slightest.

Don't believe it if you want, but it happened for our group, and it's solely because we didn't have the benefits of a Prepared Spellcaster.

In short, it's because Spontaneous requires weeks of downtime to retrain into spells that they need, versus Prepared, which can just change them the following day. This is especially great when comparing Clerics to Oracles, because Clerics can just prep spells like Remove Curse, Restoration, etc. in the following day. Oracles? They can't do that, period.

A lot of our characters suffered permanent debilitations that could not be fixed except with spells like Restoration and such. Problem is, our Oracle didn't have such spells known, and there were no scrolls or anything available to us. This was at the tail end of the 5th book, where we weren't going to have any opportunity to "retreat" to buy scrolls or otherwise get access to such spells, because doing so essentially meant we would lose in the book.

So, we were effectively forced to fight a mini-boss while super-crippled, and after having 2 of the 5 characters die as a result of being super-crippled, the other 3 simply "noped" out of the adventure (since we managed to make the mini-boss burn through their entire spell list and dip), and we ended it there. Granted, we should have TPK'd by the 2nd or 3rd book, but in that case it wouldn't have been because of different types of spellcasters.

Did you consider maybe buying scrolls?

No access to Ye Olde Magicke Shoppe, so no scrolls to buy.

As expected, you did not die because you had a spontaneous caster. You died because had a badly built spontaneous caster who did not build to fulfill their group role. This is something I don't do or deal with in my group.

We know to take restoration or a similar spell and cover bases as a spontaneous caster, especially if that is our group role. All this talk of wizards in ideal situations and prepared for what's coming, but then act like a badly built spontaneous caster somehow proves something. You have to build spontaneous casters well to make them work. They are just more fun to build well.

Explain to me how a wizard helps this situation given they don't even have restoration. They also have to have the right spell in their spellbook or it takes them a while to get a particular spell. How do you not TPK if that is what caused your TPK? Sounds like you would have TPKed if you had an arcane prepared caster because that list lacked condition removal until the Remaster.

No one said clerics or druids were bad. We always have a caster who can do restoration or similar condition removal spells in our group so we don't TPK due to conditions.

This is specifically about the wizard. We're not talking about primal, occult, and divine casters who are all great whether prepared or spontaneous.

Uh, you do realize that "badly built spontaneous caster" and "spontaneous caster" fit the same criteria here, when, in either situation, a prepared caster would have prevented it? Even a well-built spontaneous spellcaster couldn't overcome those odds because it would require circumventing the very thing that limits them, which is the available spells they have. Spontaneous spellcasters not having the right spells in the right situations requires way more time and gold to fix than a Prepared spellcaster does, and in situations where time and availability aren't there, you're kind of screwed.

I don't buy that you prepare specifically for negative effects because taking Counteract-based spells, even as a Spontaneous Spellcaster, is a bad idea simply due that Counteract-based spells are complete trap options, especially with the Remaster, which split them up into 4 categories instead of just encompassing it with 1 spell, making it even worse to invest character resources into. It's literally best for at-level scrolls, or if you need to change to prepare for it specifically, but that's it, and Spontaneous Spellcasters don't have access to the latter. Did I also mention that, if it's not your top tier spell slot, you have little to no chance of actually removing said negative effect, due to both higher level differentials, as well as having stupidly high DCs that make it nearly impossible to do?

This is a strawman. I never said "A Wizard would have fixed the problem," I said a Cleric would have fixed the problem compared to an Oracle that couldn't. And really, if, say, the Wizard was able to do something about it, but didn't prepare for it, Spell Substitution would nullify that problem. Do Sorcerers get that? Nope. They suffer and squirm for a week and pay gold and downtime for it.

Another strawman, and also contradictory to your claim of "Spontaneous > Prepared," since part of Druids and Clerics being good is their type of spellcasting. And again, since our group TPK'd by having a non-Prepared kind of spellcaster in that niche, it's not helping your case any. And again, I don't believe you prepare characters with the intention of being able to remove debilitating conditions from allies due to how difficult and costly it usually is, as it detracts significantly from other, more important values.

This is a pretty apples to oranges comparison, since you're talking about divine prepared casters (who by default have access to the whole list without needing to learn those spells). This is a topic that's largely about arcane casters, who do not have that luxury.

Also, in 1E, we're talking about an area you're at after you have access to teleport, wind walk, etc. If you can't retreat and get back to that area, that's a bit bizarre.

It is and it isn't. The complaint has been Spontaneous > Prepared, with a focus on Wizards (because they are the de facto Prepared spellcaster), and yet, if we had a Prepared spellcaster versus a Spontaneous one, we wouldn't have been super debilitated, and we wouldn't have TPK'd at that point, which is the point that I made to say that Spontaneous isn't always superior like everyone makes it out to be.

And this was converted to PF2, so expecting PF1 rules and expectations to apply does not track. Likewise, we were on a time crunch, meaning we couldn't just teleport out, retrain, then come back. We had 3 days to finish the job, and 3 times we could rest. On the second day, we got super debilitated, couldn't fix it over night, and TPK'd as a result. So saying "Just Teleport/Fly away" doesn't work.

**EDIT** Also, to put it into perspective, we were 14th level at the time. As a Forensic Medicine Investigator with Medic dedication, I couldn't have even been able to fix the issues myself with Legendary Medic, since we haven't reached the level where I could do that.

To be fair, Sorcerers have been worse than Wizards for the longest time.

I guess Paizo said "That's enough, Wizards. It's the Sorcerer's turn now."

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Our group for Curse of the Crimson Throne actually TPK'd because of a Spontaneous Spellcaster instead of a Prepared one.

If that isn't enough of a reason for Prepared > Spontaneous, then nothing is.

Don't believe this in the slightest.

Don't believe it if you want, but it happened for our group, and it's solely because we didn't have the benefits of a Prepared Spellcaster.

In short, it's because Spontaneous requires weeks of downtime to retrain into spells that they need, versus Prepared, which can just change them the following day. This is especially great when comparing Clerics to Oracles, because Clerics can just prep spells like Remove Curse, Restoration, etc. in the following day. Oracles? They can't do that, period.

A lot of our characters suffered permanent debilitations that could not be fixed except with spells like Restoration and such. Problem is, our Oracle didn't have such spells known, and there were no scrolls or anything available to us. This was at the tail end of the 5th book, where we weren't going to have any opportunity to "retreat" to buy scrolls or otherwise get access to such spells, because doing so essentially meant we would lose in the book.

So, we were effectively forced to fight a mini-boss while super-crippled, and after having 2 of the 5 characters die as a result of being super-crippled, the other 3 simply "noped" out of the adventure (since we managed to make the mini-boss burn through their entire spell list and dip), and we ended it there. Granted, we should have TPK'd by the 2nd or 3rd book, but in that case it wouldn't have been because of different types of spellcasters.

Our group for Curse of the Crimson Throne actually TPK'd because of a Spontaneous Spellcaster instead of a Prepared one.

If that isn't enough of a reason for Prepared > Spontaneous, then nothing is.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

You don't need a Recall Knowledge check to know that something about that dragon doesn't make them scary to you compared to any other dragon. It doesn't matter if you are aware of why that is, the point is that you know it is, which is part of why you wouldn't believe it to be an actual dragon.

I agree with your first sentence. The end of the second sentence does not logically follow from it. MC, "adjusting creatures" - it is fully within the rules and the setting for a GM to take a stat block and adjust it. Remove Fear ability here, add something else instead. Or add a new resistance, take an old one away. And so on.

If your players are getting too reliant on their in-game or out-of-game knowledge of stat blocks to decide whether something is illusory or not, then as a GM it's maybe time to take them out of that comfort zone and spice it up by throwing adjusted creatures at them.

That doesn't work because illusory spells do not have the ability to remove or adjust creature stat blocks to suit their needs, acting like they can or should essentially equates to giving more power to a type of spell than what is listed, which is obviously not intended, or more accurately, is cheating.

What I am more surprised about is how nobody has simply said "This type of creature is a poor choice given the circumstances of its purpose, maybe instead create an illusion of something else?"

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The problem is that the Frightful Presence feature isn't something they can turn on or off; if you are an enemy, it affects you, period.

For sure, then have the monsters roll against their Recall Knowledge skill and see if they know that. Then give them a bonus on their disbelieve check.

You don't need a Recall Knowledge check to know that something about that dragon doesn't make them scary to you compared to any other dragon. It doesn't matter if you are aware of why that is, the point is that you know it is, which is part of why you wouldn't believe it to be an actual dragon.

shroudb wrote:

Even worse for the caster, the fact that his illusory dragon doesn't invoke that feeling of primordial dread associated with being in the presence of dragons may make some more perceptive people to actually try to disbelief said "dragon" as a fake.

As a GM I wouldn't even consider this unless it was someone highly experienced with dragons, such as a dragon hunter.

Even those who have encountered dragons once before might simply assume that THIS dragon has simply chosen not to bring its full capabilities to bear.

The problem is that the Frightful Presence feature isn't something they can turn on or off; if you are an enemy, it affects you, period.

It would be quite efficient against a mindless creature, though.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Ban Fly spell and all other forms of flight.

I would note that banning that terribly restrictive ruling on Maneuvers is much easier. Like I and I think all GMs I've met personally already do. Well, not that we ban it, it's just nobody at all had a thought to rule flying this way. We'd just continue what we already do.

Pretty much what I already do, it's an action tax, that is enough of a cost.

But people believe you can stack walls on top of themselves and make a corner that way, when it is really just a taller wall.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

2 lines forming a 180 is no different than 1 line forming a 180, meaning flying straight forward requires as much of a check as flying straight backwards halfway through the action, by the logic of "You're performing a 180 because you are making a 180 degree angle due to your movement." It's especially true if we decide to RP that, you faced one direction from the previous round after downing an enemy, then did a complete 180 during your movement the following round, since apparently facing matters when we want it to matter for the mechanics.

That's not how lines, or corners, work...

1 line, has no corners. Flying one direction, you never have to turn.

Two lines, flying one direction, and then switching to another direction, that is how you form a corner.

That's the very basics of how directions work.

I can't believe I have to point out how a single line, from point A to point B has no corners, multiple times at that...

What's next? That a triangle is not 3 lines and 3 corners but 7 lines and pi corners?

Again, if you are saying you have to "turn" to perform the back and forth movement, then it makes no sense because there is no facing in this game, ergo there is no "turning" to be had. You can always face the same direction and never turn. And having played board games where facing mattered, and had rules to adjudicate said facing, the idea that this game has any form of selective facing is absolutely absurd.

For there to be corners, you have to have space in between the lines, as miniscule as it is. Overlapping lines don't make corners, therefore they share the same degree of angle as the original line, so it doesn't track as an argument.

A triangle has a minimum of 3 connected lines, creating 3 angles as a result. They could have more lines overlapping, but at least they don't automatically create 180 degree angles just for overlapping themselves.

That's not true at all. Because distance is known. If your line represents 30 feet of movement and is only 20 feet long, then you know you've back tracked.

You can only go in one direction at a time, so it's pretty easy to see when you move your token or model when you change directions.

It could still represent 30 feet of movement with zero back-tracking because of Difficult Terrain rules, as you might have to ascend 20 feet as well to reach your enemy, which is quite likely if flying is involved. And just as well, if the line is "too short" for standard ascension, a check is still required for that, too, since it could be too "steep" to ascend normally. Either way, this is a loaded assumption.

Ban Fly spell and all other forms of flight. Return to Air Walk. Easiest and best mechanic ever for 3D combat. No action tax. No stupid checks. No risk of character death. Just cast and go.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Simply moving back and forth DOES mean that you did a 180. It's that simple indeed. In fact, it's the definition of the angle of said 2 lines.

And while I, and anyone, can indeed pace back and forth, a ton of normal flying creatures cannot fly back and forth. Some can, like insects, others like eagles can't. That's the nature of flying. That requires judging by a GM.

You can only say that if you are always facing the direction that you move, and there is no rule that says this for flying or any other form of movement. Again, no facing = no direction = no "angles" in which to base off of, because this argument hinges on you always facing the direction you travel, which is irrelevant and also not even always true as you claim.

I honestly don't understand this argument. Your path marks the angle of the turn -- facing has nothing to do with anything. If you move 3 squares north then 2 squares south, that is a 180 even if you were facing the sky the entire time.

Because we are treating this as a geometry problem instead of a simulationist problem. A straight line on a grid is a 180, it doesn't matter if you tread back over it or not, so by this logic even flying straight requires a check.

a line has no corner, what are you even talking about?

2 lines, each one made by a movement form the 180 degree angle.

as for when it is maneuver, movement in a round is cumulicative, as even yourself pointed out.

so if in this cumulicative movement within the round, you do a 180, you have to roll the check.

plus, since this is a simulation, and not real time, there's a reason you have to "fly at least once or you fall" in a round, it's not like you're flying, and then you are hovering. It's you're flying and doing those actions all together in said round. It has to be split, because that's how the system work, but what "you have to spend an action...

2 lines forming a 180 is no different than 1 line forming a 180, meaning flying straight forward requires as much of a check as flying straight backwards halfway through the action, by the logic of "You're performing a 180 because you are making a 180 degree angle due to your movement." It's especially true if we decide to RP that, you faced one direction from the previous round after downing an enemy, then did a complete 180 during your movement the following round, since apparently facing matters when we want it to matter for the mechanics.

Uh, no. Starting the flight, you fly 30 feet straight forward. You Strike an enemy. This Strike stops your initial fly action, as you can't Fly and Strike simultaneously (barring Fly-By Attack or similar abilities). You then fly 30 feet straight backwards. This restarts an unrelated flight, as well as resets any movement calculations you did earlier in the round.

The "fly at least once in a round" part isn't what I have issue with; this is the action tax of flight, which makes it already suboptimal to begin with, but at least it is simple and realistic. The issue is that now you have a chance of not even doing anything, or worse, falling to your death, every time you fly, on top of wasting actions for it. It's literally injury to constant insult. Imagine rolling a 1, taking a bunch of fall damage, and dying because the combat required that you go up against a flying enemy, where using projectile weapons was futile.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Simply moving back and forth DOES mean that you did a 180. It's that simple indeed. In fact, it's the definition of the angle of said 2 lines.

And while I, and anyone, can indeed pace back and forth, a ton of normal flying creatures cannot fly back and forth. Some can, like insects, others like eagles can't. That's the nature of flying. That requires judging by a GM.

You can only say that if you are always facing the direction that you move, and there is no rule that says this for flying or any other form of movement. Again, no facing = no direction = no "angles" in which to base off of, because this argument hinges on you always facing the direction you travel, which is irrelevant and also not even always true as you claim.

I honestly don't understand this argument. Your path marks the angle of the turn -- facing has nothing to do with anything. If you move 3 squares north then 2 squares south, that is a 180 even if you were facing the sky the entire time.

Because we are treating this as a geometry problem instead of a simulationist problem. A straight line on a grid is a 180, it doesn't matter if you tread back over it or not, so by this logic even flying straight requires a check.

Grumpus wrote:

As for the moving 180. Does that mean you make the check if you 180 within the single move action. (like flying down a corridor that turns sharply and you have enough movement to turn the corner and keep going), or does it mean fly in with an action, then attack, then fly directly back out with another action?

If so, does this mean you have to track the direction you were moving on the previous turn? Like your 3rd action on round 1 you were flying south, and first 2 actions on round 2 you make 2 strikes then 3rd action on round 2 you fly north. Does this count?

In past editions of Pathfinder and D&D, it was officially clarified that it had to be within the same action.

As no such clarification exists for 2nd Edition, insofar as I'm aware, take what you will from that.

Well, there are the rules that actions that move through squares (such as striding) are cumulative for the purposes of determining movement costs and such, so it's not completely unclear, especially since the checks are dependent on you taking Fly actions.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Grumpus wrote:

As for the moving 180. Does that mean you make the check if you 180 within the single move action. (like flying down a corridor that turns sharply and you have enough movement to turn the corner and keep going), or does it mean fly in with an action, then attack, then fly directly back out with another action?

If so, does this mean you have to track the direction you were moving on the previous turn? Like your 3rd action on round 1 you were flying south, and first 2 actions on round 2 you make 2 strikes then 3rd action on round 2 you fly north. Does this count?

It is mostly based at the time you take the action.

If I spend 1 action flying forward, strike, then 1 action flying backward, then there is no check. If I do both of these things on the same action/activity, or on consecutive actions, then a check is required.

So, technically, you could cheese it with actions to burn, but spending an entire turn flying around in an attempt to avoid making checks instead of properly fighting enemies will get you a lot of glares from party members.

Regardless, this just means I am banning flight at my tables from now on. Too much headache and honestly not worth the added punishment since it already is an action tax. It's either Air Walk or bust.

100% disagree.

At minimum I'd put a full round limit to going back and forth to not have a check in my tables for the creatures this applies.

It just doesn't apply to every kind of flight.

The thing is that there is a clear break between the creature moving and not moving if an action is taken between the flying actions. During that time, the creature is stationary, meaning they stopped moving to perform an action. This isn't like a Fly-by Attack activity, where it is all condensed into one activity.

As for the moving 180. Does that mean you make the check if you 180 within the single move action. (like flying down a corridor that turns sharply and you have enough movement to turn the corner and keep going), or does it mean fly in with an action, then attack, then fly directly back out with another action?

If so, does this mean you have to track the direction you were moving on the previous turn? Like your 3rd action on round 1 you were flying south, and first 2 actions on round 2 you make 2 strikes then 3rd action on round 2 you fly north. Does this count?

It is mostly based at the time you take the action.

If I spend 1 action flying forward, strike, then 1 action flying backward, then there is no check. If I do both of these things on the same action/activity, or on consecutive actions, then a check is required.

So, technically, you could cheese it with actions to burn, but spending an entire turn flying around in an attempt to avoid making checks instead of properly fighting enemies will get you a lot of glares from party members.

Regardless, this just means I am banning flight at my tables from now on. Too much headache and honestly not worth the added punishment since it already is an action tax. It's either Air Walk or bust.

Let us keep in mind that having actual 360 facing is a monster ability called "all around vision" that makes you immune to flanking.

At any single moment, a character is indeed facing one way, it's just that it's abstract the fact that you can turn your head and look over your shoulder.

But that has nothing to do with directionality and even less to do with movement..

The fact that you can turn your head left or right and be able to see both left and right doesn't somehow translate to being able to simultaneously move both left and right. Directionality exists.

When you move 1 square east, you can't say that this is not east but that you moved simultaneously both east and west.

So, when you draw a line from one place to another, and then a second line from the new place and it overlaps with the previous line, that's the very definition of 180 degree angle.

Where you were looking while travelling this distance is absolutely irrelevant.

Poorly worded and intended ability is poorly worded and intended. Flanking is only present because you are considered over-extended and can't properly defend yourself on two opposite sides, hence its specific requirements. It has little to do with being unable to fully see your foes, because you can't flank creatures while invisible unless the creature (as well as the ally you are flanking with) can likewise see invisible creatures.

Directionality only exists on a grid. You can move in a direction regardless of facing on a grid, nothing in the rules says you must face the direction you move on the grid, so we are now implementing facing rules in a game where facing doesn't exist. Which is also why the "all-around vision" ability is complete BS in how it works. Yes, mechanically it is pretty straight forward, but the reasoning behind the mechanic does not match what the mechanic actually is (having 360 vision).

Quote:

If there is no facing then how can you determine if you are doing a 180, which requires that you face one direction, then face the opposite direction? Simply moving backward then forward, or vice-versa, doesn't constitute this, so again, how do the rules call for a character doing a 180 when they are already always doing a 360 at all times? This would translate to demanding a check at all times by RAW since no facing = facing everything at all times.

Your GM sees you move directly north 4 squares, then next directly south 4 squares. To me probably even going 90° east or west as well would do it, but I'm likely more restrictive than most.

This translates to momentum existing.

So then that means creatures are constantly spinning around because creatures see all around themselves and momentum exists and they can't just stop facing a direction because facing doesn't exist.

Simply moving back and forth DOES mean that you did a 180. It's that simple indeed. In fact, it's the definition of the angle of said 2 lines.

And while I, and anyone, can indeed pace back and forth, a ton of normal flying creatures cannot fly back and forth. Some can, like insects, others like eagles can't. That's the nature of flying. That requires judging by a GM.

You can only say that if you are always facing the direction that you move, and there is no rule that says this for flying or any other form of movement. Again, no facing = no direction = no "angles" in which to base off of, because this argument hinges on you always facing the direction you travel, which is irrelevant and also not even always true as you claim.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

Don't 180 on a dime, don't fly in a hurricane, don't do a steep climb, don't do a loop.

Boom, you just avoided basically every check.

No facing in this game, so that check doesn't even exist by its own merit.

Hurricanes are pretty obvious hazards and are probably one of the few cases where a check makes sense, though those often have their own rules and almost don't interact with the Acrobatics rules at all, so I don't get why this is referenced as an example other than to give GMs guidance.

My issue with the steep ascent/descent rules is that you can ascend at a 45 degree angle without a check (just like Air Walk), and for cheaper movement overall, so why should I have to make a check to be worse? Unless I'm flying out of a chimney or something, this feels extremely contrived.

How does making a loop invoke a check? Is this some flight simulator where geforces are involved? This otherwise falls under the first one, where it involves using something not even related to the rules at all.

So, other than the one instance where a check might be involved, and the rest being either irrelevant or overtly punishing for no reason, it feels more like Acrobatics checks for maneuvers is wholly unnecessary than it is necessary to facilitate good/fun gameplay.

While there's no facing, directionality exists.

You can very easily ascertain when something is moving back and forth, doing a 180degree direction change and when not.

As for vertical up and down, as you say, when there's enough space, it's easy to do so without a check, but for the more challenging vertical up/down is why there's guidelines on how to deal with.

Ultimately, it's up to the GM to weight if a movement is a difficult maneuver or not, and how difficult. And as most GM calls, it's something that has a lot of parameters to consider, enough of them to not make it a hard rule but something that needs to be judged by a living, thinking, person.

If there is no facing then how can you determine if you are doing a 180, which requires that you face one direction, then face the opposite direction? Simply moving backward then forward, or vice-versa, doesn't constitute this, so again, how do the rules call for a character doing a 180 when they are already always doing a 360 at all times? This would translate to demanding a check at all times by RAW since no facing = facing everything at all times.

Don't 180 on a dime, don't fly in a hurricane, don't do a steep climb, don't do a loop.

Boom, you just avoided basically every check.

No facing in this game, so that check doesn't even exist by its own merit.

Hurricanes are pretty obvious hazards and are probably one of the few cases where a check makes sense, though those often have their own rules and almost don't interact with the Acrobatics rules at all, so I don't get why this is referenced as an example other than to give GMs guidance.

My issue with the steep ascent/descent rules is that you can ascend at a 45 degree angle without a check (just like Air Walk), and for cheaper movement overall, so why should I have to make a check to be worse? Unless I'm flying out of a chimney or something, this feels extremely contrived.

How does making a loop invoke a check? Is this some flight simulator where geforces are involved? This otherwise falls under the first one, where it involves using something not even related to the rules at all.

So, other than the one instance where a check might be involved, and the rest being either irrelevant or overtly punishing for no reason, it feels more like Acrobatics checks for maneuvers is wholly unnecessary than it is necessary to facilitate good/fun gameplay.

It doesn't force checks all the time unless you're constantly doing the things listed. Most of which can be completely avoided.

And every dragon I look at that has a fly speed has Acrobatics, which dragons are you referring to?

The only one that might not force a check is flying in place. The rest require a check. Ascending or Descending, which is the main usage of flying, all requires checks.

Okay, fine, I admit that the dragon bit was hyperbole, but if there are creatures with Fly and not Acrobatics, the point still stands that they can't actually fly, and can really hover at best.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

which will likely result in failures

It has a chance of failure, but a DC 15 isn't particularly difficult by the time flight comes in. As long as you have any investment in Acrobatics you're probably fine.

30% isn't an insignificant chance for failure when Fly becomes available. And really, a spell that has a 30% chance of either not doing anything for me, or even worse, resulting in me wasting even more actions, or just outright falling to my death, is a terribly designed spell and activity. And sure, we can argue "but Assurance is a feat, meaning no checks required," but it doesn't work for the harder checks, and it now means I have to invest feats and skill training into something that I probably wouldn't have invested in to begin with.

Again, Fly is a Trap Option if you force Acrobatics checks for everything, and it is already a downside because you must waste 1 Action every turn just to maintain your position, so making it even more of an already apparent downside is absurd. Also, a lot of dragons would be too fat/incapable of flight because they aren't Acrobatics trained by this logic. Congrats, we just clipped the wings of most all dragons with this ruling.

This is why the Air Walk spell trumps any sort of flying abilities: If it means I don't have to deal with the stupid headache of having to make checks to Fly, which will likely result in failures and insta-character deaths, and I don't have to waste actions just to stay in the air or stand back up from falling down?

Sold. Thanks Paizo for turning Flight into a Trap Option.

I do not recall the divine list having the fly spell in PF2 before the Remaster.

Fly is listed on the Divine list now on Archives. Is that accurate?

What other spells expanded to other lists in the Remaster? I can see Divine having fly, but I was surprised when I hit bylevel 7 and fly was available for a divine caster as I was used to having to use air walk for a divine caster.

To be fair, Air Walk is the superior combat spell anyway, since you don't have to spend actions each turn to maintain it, and you can't be knocked straight to the ground from it. And if you get knocked unconscious, you won't take an additional Dying from falling damage either.

It appears the Divine list got nerfed as a side effect of putting the spell under the same umbrella, which is a shame, because outside of the Heal spell and maybe the Restoration line of spells, the Divine list didn't have much else going for it, this being one of the few things that did.

Cam your or anyone else taking this position provide real ideas for fixing casters that doesn't include making them overpowered again?

Do you even know what each caster does? Can you even discuss how they interact with the game and provide Paizo real reasons than just "feeling" from some nameless minority discussing actual casters in play?

These nebulous threads are about as helpful to a designer anyone saying they don't like how something feel is.

Provide actionable criticism for each caster based on what they they can do using real game experience to show you have seen them played, measured their metrics against martials, and know what you're talking about.

Every time I see these threads, almost no one but me provides any real evidence either because they haven't actually played "casters" in this game and mean "their favorite caster that didn't work, usually the wizard" with a complete absence of actionable criticism.

There are plenty of things that can be changed to make spellcasters better without breaking the system. Proficiency scaling could be changed to function more along the lines of the Martial paradigm, wherein being Legendary is truly a noteworthy feature, and not just "the standard." Metamagic feats could be more useful and significantly less situational so that spellcasters are incentivized to take them as feats, instead of picking something else that's better, or branching off into something entirely because it's just objectively better than anything else available to your class. Focus spells could be balanced around class chassis instead of spell traditions (since it's class abilities that grant said focus spells, not spellcasting traditions themselves), so that classes with 'meh' spell lists likewise aren't also stuck with 'meh' focus spells, making it a 'meh' experience overall. Base chassis for certain classes can be revised to be less static and boring and having better parity amongst themselves, instead of relying on spell preparation for class variation (which has relatively proven to be subject to "One True Build"ism, since picking staple spells is important for constant relevance in encounters). The problem is that Paizo has made their bed and now they have to lie in it, and this is doubly true after they've essentially finished publishing the Remaster content.

I don't know the absolute fine details of every caster in the game, but I have a general idea behind most of them, and I imagine the amount of people that do have all, and I mean ALL of those fine details, are either constant players of the game (that is, they play far more frequently than once a week, the standard of which most players play), or are the creators of the game, which is an extremely finite amount, even when PF2 has been out for half a decade, and even then, I imagine they haven't played every spellcaster from 1 to 20 and organically built them, comparing options and going "I like this option, but this other option is pretty bad," or having played the same class twice, but going different routes to compare where they shine and don't shine at.

I disagree; often times, posters will go into detail as to why it feels bad, and this helps to differentiate between whether it's just a poor playstyle choice based on the probability rates (that is, targeting an enemy's good save instead of a bad one), or it's a glaring issue of the system that probably should be re-tuned, or if it's just the GM's dice having a field day with the players. As an example, the amount of times I've seen players attempt to utilize Fortitude Save-based spells, and I as a GM end up going "This creature has an extreme Fortitude save," is astronomically high, and is doubly true for "boss" enemies. Like, even the specialized Grapple Monk in one of my groups still struggles to grab enemies more than half the time with full bonus, simply because 90% of monsters are tuned to have a high or extreme Fortitude save. I can really only remember a couple monsters that have average or less Fortitude saves, and that's only because they are generally significant creatures to face. Compared to Reflex save-based effects, where creatures are either middling or terrible at, and it's quite clear that the game intends for players to regularly pitch Reflex-based effects at enemies based on the likelihood of success/failure from the monsters. I would like to include Will save-based effects, but most of the creatures with a terrible Will Save are likely mindless in some capacity and therefore can't reasonably be affected by 99% of Will Save effects anyway, which actually significantly hurts player options by essentially "negating" 1/3 of their toolset.

The thing is that you will have multiple players play the same class organically and come to completely different conclusions based on either the needs of the party or the experiences of the player in a given adventure, often which will be counter to your conclusions, either because they simply have a different playstyle or preference from you, or because they have had completely different outcomes for the same actions you've taken. With the amount of variables in place here, attempting to deny somebody simply because it's different from yours comes off as gatekeeping shenanigans. "Only my playstyle is valid because I experienced it," isn't the high ground you're expressing it as.

It's also not that. It's not that they're lacking in versatility of viable builds. It's that it's too easy to get yourself dialed into bad strategies and bad builds and have a hard time getting yourself back out again. If you know how to build and play casters, there are plenty of options that work fine. The issue is that if you sit down with a martial class, knowing absolutely nothing about the game, and you put together the three to five most obvious builds/strategies with that class, all of them will *basically* work. That's just not the case with casters in the same way, and if you get dialed in on a caster strategy that isn't successful, ti can be hard to climb up out of that and find one that is.

The bolded part is literally what "One True Build"ism demonstrates. That there is only one real way to play the class, because playing it any other way is a bad strategy/build, or isn't nearly as effective as the "One True Build." And really, having certain classes possess way more trap options than other classes is indicative of bad design for said class. Incidentally, most spellcasting classes have this problem.

As for the whole "brute force martials" thing, explain that to all the newer players who just charge into a group of monsters or a big boss and expect to wipe the floor with them, only to get rekt and left to die by the party because they completely threw tactics out the window. The amount of threads of people saying the game is "too hard" is a great indicator of failures in brute force martial gameplay.

Giant Instinct Barbarians also don't hold a front line against incoming enemy damage as well as a Champion does. That doesn't mean that Barbarian is a weak class that needs redesigned.

No, a Wizard isn't going to be throwing top-rank magical damage around all day. That is the Kineticist's role. That doesn't mean that Wizard is a weak class that needs redesigned.

Depends on the damage. If it's based in Fortitude and Will Saves, Barbarians will hold that line even better than Champions do. If it's against Reflex Saves, a Barbarian will probably hold it just as well, because let's be honest, Champion Reflex Saves are terrible.

The only part that Champions have that is better than a Barbarian is Shield Specializations and higher AC, the former of which isn't always taken, and the latter of which is only really helpful at preventing critical hits, but the Barbarian makes up for that with the added HP and Temp HP from Rage.

You would be correct, the Wizard is a weak class for many other reasons besides "It doesn't do massive amounts of damage," but again, if Spellcasters aren't the "damage" character archetype, giving them options to do damage is basically introducing trap options into the game.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Honestly, the argument of "Casters are good, you're just playing them wrong," only really highlights that Casters aren't a class that gives you much build versatility, and supports the "One True Build" idealism that PF2 has tried to go out of its way to demolish by enabling a lot of ways to build a character.

I don't think that argument is arguing that you don't have a variety in builds but more you need inherently need to use tactics to play a spellcaster whereas you can sort of brute force martials.

This isn't a sensible argument because martials likewise require tactics to play them. They just aren't the same tactics that spellcasters likewise need to worry about, and don't require anywhere near as much homework to acknowledge which tactics are good/bad to use on enemies.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Honestly, the argument of "Casters are good, you're just playing them wrong," only really highlights that Casters aren't a class that gives you much build versatility, and supports the "One True Build" idealism that PF2 has tried to go out of its way to demolish by enabling a lot of ways to build a character.

Or it's just that players who want their PC be as good as martials in what martials are best should simply play martials.

And same the other way too.

Then why are magical martials or combat spellcasters a thing if these are meant to be mutually exclusive paradigms?

There a thing but they are weaker at what each is on it's own. The magus will never match a wizard with spells or a fighter with straight fights. They can get somewhat close but they won't and aren't supposed to be as good as either. But it gives enough of each to feel satisfying for most.

The problem is that this sounds more like trying to do both leads to you just shooting yourself and your group in the foot. A Magus trying to do Fighter stuff leads to them getting smoked by reactions over time (while having less defenses), and a Magus trying to do Wizard stuff leads to them not having enough slots to do the necessary things (even with Wizard Dedication).

It also doesn't explain why these niches exist if it's apparent that they are meant to be mutually exclusive, as evidenced by the balance points of Battle Forms never exceeding Martial capabilities while also disallowing spellcasting, as well as the limited resources of Spellcasters versus the unlimited performance of Martials. Really, the best argument is "It's a desired fantasy," but that is in direct contradiction of "Martials do X, Spellcasters do Y, that's how the game works."

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Honestly, the argument of "Casters are good, you're just playing them wrong," only really highlights that Casters aren't a class that gives you much build versatility, and supports the "One True Build" idealism that PF2 has tried to go out of its way to demolish by enabling a lot of ways to build a character.

Generalist spellcasters have plenty of build versatility. They do not fill a role better suited to other types of spellcaster. That is not a failing of class design.

If you want a spellcaster that deals damage as constantly as a martial character swings a sword, play a Kineticist.

If you want a spellcaster that has some castings of damage dealing spells available for every battle during a day no matter how many battles there are, play a spellcaster that has damage dealing focus spells such as most Psychics, many Druid orders, and Elemental Sorcerer.

The issue is that there are so few things in spellcasting that are worth sacrificing versatility for that it's almost not worth doing most of the time. I could probably count on one hand the amount of "specializations" worth doing, and even then some of them can be discounted with proper play and tactics. Plus, given that spellcasters whole schtick is to be able to do everything else that the martials can't, sacrificing versatility is a hard sell most of the time.

Kineticists don't cast spells. They can function in an anti-magic field just fine, and probably even better than martials do most of the time. They're not really an adequate frame of reference for niche balance since this is the class that throws it all out the window and is in its own echelon.

Focus Spells are nice, but are basically class-locked and build-locked. It's quite clear that only certain spellcasters can make good use of Focus Spells, and that their class budget is (or at least should be) designed around the power those Focus Spells give. Heck, even non-spellcasters get access to good Focus Spells, so making that an argument in favor of spellcasters is shenanigans.

This appears to be an overgeneralization. No one has said that these concepts are mutually exclusive.

It's said, just not directly. "You're playing a Spellcaster wrong" is basically saying that you can't treat them like a Martial, ergo it is indeed mutually exclusive, based on the idea that Martials can't do Spellcaster things, and vice-versa.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Honestly, the argument of "Casters are good, you're just playing them wrong," only really highlights that Casters aren't a class that gives you much build versatility, and supports the "One True Build" idealism that PF2 has tried to go out of its way to demolish by enabling a lot of ways to build a character.

Or it's just that players who want their PC be as good as martials in what martials are best should simply play martials.

And same the other way too.

Then why are magical martials or combat spellcasters a thing if these are meant to be mutually exclusive paradigms?

Honestly, the argument of "Casters are good, you're just playing them wrong," only really highlights that Casters aren't a class that gives you much build versatility, and supports the "One True Build" idealism that PF2 has tried to go out of its way to demolish by enabling a lot of ways to build a character.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

It does half of what is advertised, which, as you've been arguing, has been the point of contention brought up in the thread.

How is it not as advertised? It turns you into an amorphous vaporous state. Elemental Hurricane, for instance, is a creature made of air that has an athletics skill meaning it can interact and be interacted with even though it has a similar state. What is actually granted what is advertised. The first few sentences and/or name of feats/spells/ect can often give the wrong impression of what you get; for instance flying kick in fact doesn't have to be a kick.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

If you turn yourself into a vapor, and not even anything that resembles a creature (such as an air elemental), then the idea that you can be grabbed is about as absurd as being able to grapple mist from the rain, because that is basically what the spell turns you into.

I don't see where it alters your basic default shape and if you were actually like rain then you wouldn't be damaged by physical attacks: you still have a cohesive physical form even if you can pour it through cracks when you move. [you also have enough physical form that you retain your land movement: you aren't just a floating cloud] NOTHING in the spell makes me think 'this was meant to be a spell to escape grapples!' If that was the case, I'd expect it would actually mention athletics, escapes or grapples.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

It's a common escape tactic of creatures like Vampires and such, transforming into a misty form and escaping to their coffin when they are out and about and are being attacked by would-be adventurers.

Nothing stops this though. It's an escape spell not a combat spell, and any SMART vampire would plan to use it in an area with small holes and such that they can escape through and most enemies wouldn't: I don't think 'break out of grapple' is an expected part of that as vampires aren't exactly bad at athletics or grapples. I think most...

It is because the air elemental can interact with creatures as a physical entity that it can do this. Vapor Form disallows this, which kind of aids itself into that ideal, because if it doesn't, you could never escape a grab while the spell is active, meaning the idea to use it to escape a grapple, which makes logical sense, fails as a concept mechanically, hence the arguing for it being a problematic rule. Just as well, air elementals also can't move through walls and such like the spell can, so mechanically speaking, equating them to be able to do the same thing doesn't track. Also, the argument of "it's descriptive text" doesn't work for the same reason you cannot Doctor's Visitation yourself. I would also contest that you could make a non-Kick Strike with the Flying Kick feat, but those debates are for another thread.

Literally, the first two lines in the description says "The target transforms into a vaporous state. In this state, the target is amorphous." It also has the Polymorph trait, which is stated to "transform the target into a new form." So saying it doesn't actually change your form when you have two separate points that expressly state your form changes, it's quite contradictory. As for the whole "can't be damaged" argument, that is kind of what the Resistance is meant to imply, that it is harder to damage you as a result of your new form. It also makes more sense that you can hit and swing at mist compared to grabbing it.

I mean, it's a pretty common trope that a vampire hunter would grab a vampire and stab them in the heart with a wooden stake. To suggest they can still do this even when a vampire enters its mist form is absurd. Also, your own argument undermines your whole premise of a "smart location" to use it, because once you are grabbed, it's over. The ideal setting for the spell is irrelevant once close quarters combat begins and equally smart players know what tactics to use against them. All it takes is one recall knowledge check, and the vampire can't escape.

But it DOES allow you to "slip through otherwise impassable terrain" so it does what it's meant to do and isn't useless: it wasn't advertised as an 'escape from grapple' spell but a 'bypass porous barrier' spell and it does that. Do you really think the intent for this was a combat spell?

IMO, if anything it's a bad comparison because Vapor Form actually has uses while all Eschew Materials did was save you 5sp for a feat... Calling it JUST niche is a vast understatement.

Vapor Form has been called TBTBT and useless, apt terms for Eschew Materials IMO. Again, I think Vapor Form has MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more use than Eschew Materials ever did if we're talking about being worth the word count.

It does half of what is advertised, which, as you've been arguing, has been the point of contention brought up in the thread. If you turn yourself into a vapor, and not even anything that resembles a creature (such as an air elemental), then the idea that you can be grabbed is about as absurd as being able to grapple mist from the rain, because that is basically what the spell turns you into. And before the arguments of "If you want that kind of effect, cast Effortless Movement instead," firstly, those require Counteract checks (which don't always work), and secondly, you're paying for this added fidelity by lack of ability to cast spells (other than to dismiss), activate items, or otherwise attack or manipulate things. Significant limitations which essentially remove you from contributing to combat in any fashion. Plus, you can still be struck at, which makes more sense than grabbing, since you can swing at mist, but not reasonably grab it.

It's a common escape tactic of creatures like Vampires and such, transforming into a misty form and escaping to their coffin when they are out and about and are being attacked by would-be adventurers. Having a spell be designed to escape enemies when in tight situations, but actually be terrible or ineffective at escaping enemies, falls under the "probably not intended" argument of the ambiguous rules clause, because now you have a spell not doing something that it was specifically designed for. Even the argument of "it works for the other half of what it was meant for" doesn't apply because it's irrelevant to the factor that the other half is simply broken. (Let's also not forget that if said creature was Grappled already, they still have to make a Flat 5 check to Cast the Spell, and if they are Restrained, they must Break Free first to Cast the Spell; plenty restrictive enough in my opinion.)

Also, the combat spell argument is grasping at straws. If this was not meant to be a combat spell, having a casting time measured in rounds instead of minutes, hours, days, etc. already disproves it, since any spell not having a casting time in rounds is automatically disallowed in combat situations.

I was saying Vapor Form was niche, whereas Eschew Materials was so worthless that it shouldn't have warranted a feat cost, hence why I am conflating them as two different reasons for being bad. One is bad because of its effective scale and scope. The other is bad because it doesn't apply to half of the situations it's meant for. (Whereas Eschew Materials works for all of the situations it's meant to work for, as weak and limited as they are.) This is why they aren't even comparable.

That's the way i see it. "Useless" isn't causing any problems if no one wants it and who wants it if it's useless?

I don't think it's that cut and dry, nor does it excuse the fact that it's a waste of publishing space that could have been used for better content, as well as it being bad is precisely what is making it useless to begin with; feeding into itself like that probably isn't intended.

The ability to actually escape impossible bonds or slip through otherwise impassable terrain is what is intended by the spell, and it not being able to do what it's intended to do (by nature of it being unable to ignore important mechanics behind its intended function) is what is making it be labeled useless, having it then fall under the "problematic rules" clause.

It's in no way comparable to Eschew Materials, where the feat actually does what it says it does (removes Material components from spells that require Material components), and is simply bad because there is little to no value in removing Material components from spells. (I suppose there was the whole "free hand" thing, but there were other better alternatives to that stuff anyway.) Vapor Form is bad because its intended use (escape impossible bonds and slip through impassable terrain without impediments) doesn't function, not because the ability to do this activity is in and of itself bad. Niche, sure. But absolutely great when you need it.

With that in mind, I really don't think Eschew Materials and Vapor Form are on the same wave length. At no point are we pointing to Eschew Materials and go "this doesn't work the way it should." We are pointing to Eschew Materials and going "this ancillary benefit doesn't warrant the cost of a class feat," which is a completely different argument behind Vapor Form being labeled bad, which is because it's not fulfilling the effects it's meant to fulfill by nature of not having clauses which let it ignore those types of things (compared to say, Effortless Movement).

graystone wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

If something being mechanically almost unusable because it's so terribly written or designed isn't "problematic repercussions" I don't see what possibly could be.

No one is forced to take it and it causes no side cases or interactions with other rules that interfere with the game... IMO, not problematic as you just don't pick bad options if you are worried about them being bad. Eschew Materials was always a bad feat, for instance, but it being bad brought no "problematic repercussions": you just didn't pick it. Bad, in and of itself isn't problematic.

Personally, that feels like you're holding 'problematic' up to a very high standard if it needs to impact the whole game itself. If someone wants to use an option and cannot because it doesn't function, that is a repercussion of the rule that is a problem for my table, and I'm happy to make changes to the rule on the basis of that repercussion. Either way, the whole point of the Ambiguous Rules heading is to make clear to GMs that you don't need to use a seemingly-RAW interpretation of a piece of rules text if it is causing an issue at your table, so being overly legalistic here feels against the spirit of the section. If a rules interpretation is leaving something non-functional, it seems well within the spirit of the Ambiguous Rules section to recommend a different interpretation.

I made this argument before about how a spell's heighten mechanic doesn't function properly, and basically the argument becomes "It isn't relevant to 99% of games, so it doesn't matter if it doesn't work or not." The same applies here, too.

Of course, I am of the opinion that they could have just scrapped this "useless" content entirely and either used that time and effort to address other more important issues, or instead published an actually functional spell in place of it, but some people are perfectly fine with products that have broken features.

To be fair, all of the previous [Combat] Form spells prohibited all other forms of Attack actions as well, so it doesn't surprise me that this is held over from that.

This will never get an answer.

It's you.

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.

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.

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.

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.