Darksol the Painbringer's page

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

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

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

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

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

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

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

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

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

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bluemagetim wrote:

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

DH will have expert at 5 and master at 13.

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

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

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

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

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

Same can be said for Champion AC scaling.

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

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

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

Ravingdork wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"No need. I cast Fireball."

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, no.

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

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

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

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

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

Those are *not* synonyms

Are you sure?

Numerous sources will disagree with that claim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are literally contradicting yourself in your own post.

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

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

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

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

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

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

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

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

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

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

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

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

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

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

So, my setting has just changed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome #1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outcome #2

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are literally dozens of these types of reactions.

Opportune Riposte: Does your character know the difference between a failed attack and a critically failed attack? Does the player know what number the GM rolled?

Disruptive Stance: adds concentrate actions to the list of triggers for Reactive Strike - which normally can't be observed. How do you tell the difference between someone just standing there and someone standing there concentrating on something?

There are a ton just regarding spells:

Clever Counterspell: How do you know if the spell in question is in your spellbook if you didn't use your reaction to identify it?

Absorb Spell: How do you know if the spell is of a level that you can normally cast if you didn't already spend your reaction to identify the spell?

Invoke Celestial Privilege: Similar to the last one - how do you know that the spell is a Divine tradition spell if you didn't identify it?

Dueling Counter: Same problem with reacting to an unidentified spell.

Even items have this.

Reflecting Shard: The spell is unidentified, but you need to know that it is 5th level or lower.

-----

My conclusion is that the requirements in the Ready action - that the trigger be something that the character can observe - is only a requirement for the Ready action. Not reactions in general.

For reactions in general, the player should know that the trigger happened and is able to choose whether to have the character use their reaction on it or not. Much like how the player of an unconscious character still gets to choose whether they are a willing target of an effect or not.

The game does require a certain...

1. You don't know what they rolled, merely the result of their action, which is all that matters in triggering the reaction. You don't need to know if they failed by 10, 12, or even 15 more than the target number, merely that they did fail the target number by a certain value (or more), which is all the reaction calls for. As for not knowing the result, that's just shenanigans, because then players can be in complete denial about their numbers or results rolled by the GM. Let's not enable problematic gameplay by being stingy about what players get to know from the results of enemies in combat.

2. In what universe can you not see a creature concentrating on something? Usually it's hard for creatures to be able to disrupt concentration like that just based on that alone, but it's not like it isn't noticeable (such as when they, you know, cast or sustain a spell, which have obvious action costs). Furthermore, the feat lets you expressly do so while it's active. Saying it can't do the thing that it's expressly meant to do breaks the feat in a way that makes it unusable, making the interpretation of "You can't see concentration activities, so you can't use the feat," complete nonsense.

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

As for heightening or automatically identifying spells, the rules cover it already. As for traditions, again, the rules already cover it. Really, the issue becomes whether players will be successful on these kinds of things when they aren't their specialty (such as a Divine spell being cast at a Wizard), but I imagine the balance becomes that non-matching traditions are harder to counteract compared to matching ones, which makes sense, and is part of the game design.

The rituals printed in War of Immortals aren't sitting right with me. It's not that I have a problem with the rituals in-and-of themselves, but I can't say I'm fond of classics like Create Demiplane, Imprisonment, and Freedom are now inaccessible to anyone who lacks mythic power.

Like, are evil wizards all suddenly going to have to get into the real estate market? In THIS economy!? Jokes aside, I dislike the idea that one must be mythic to seal away the immortal evil, or magically reinforce a structure. This feels like a needless restriction on rituals that are already tagged uncommon or rare, and thus plainly subject to GM discretion to begin with.

I mean, rituals were already so niche and underused/undervalued that I honestly don't think most any homegame will be meaningfully impacted by relegating certain rituals (especially the highest level, most powerful rituals) to Mythic, and most APs already have means to either make these things automatic or unnecessary in the first place. The whole "more than one way to handle an adventure/encounter" schtick.

As for the narrative/lore of the game, a lot of characters who already have access to these abilities are likely already Mythic in-lore (such as Nex and Geb), which means it doesn't really break the setting's immersion, either. The lore doesn't really acknowledge Joe the Average having a Demiplane all of his own, nor are we having a lot of home games where characters like Wally the Whimsical Wizard have his own Whimsical Warehouse to operate his Ye Olde Magicke Shoppe from, so the idea that Mythic is either an on/off button for games, or that the game is missing something by relegating these things to Mythic, just doesn't track.

And really, worst case scenario, you can mechanically still use the old versions of the rituals in question, if you still have the old books they came from, or if you reference them in the Archives of Nethys, so the idea that they are technically truly "gone" from standard games is only true if the GM doesn't allow it in the first place, and if they won't allow it because it's a Rare ritual that disrupts the pacing of the game, they probably wouldn't allow it in the Mythic rules either.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Pointless thread revival was pointless because the rules already covered this. You cannot use Breath Weapon on consecutive turns without an ability or effect recharging it for you, I already cited the rule that states this, if nobody wants to read it or chooses to ignore it for their home games, that's their prerogative, but it's still incorrect from a RAW (and RAI) standpoint.

By RAW the statement in the Monter Building rules is incorrect, but it is a statement of the RAI...

The RAW needs to be corrected to reflect the RAI.

Was written the 'cooldown' is a duration, and 1 round would clear at the start of your next turn.

The stated intent would be 'until the end of your next 1d4 turns' to set the clearing at the end of your turns, starting with your end of your next (1) turn through up to 4th following turn... as covered in the general rule on durations.

It doesn't need to be changed because the rule already clarifies it for you, and supersedes your general math rules, terrible and incorrect as they are (tell me again how 1D4 = 1D4-1). Breath Weapons aren't intended to be used in consecutive rounds, and the rules clearly state such. If it was meant to be used in consecutive rounds, it would be 1D4-1, or simply not have a recharge timer at all. It can't be made any more apparent than this. Stop trying to propose arguments for something that it cannot apply to, because saying it has a "cooldown" makes no sense, because the word "cooldown" does not exist in any PF2 book anywhere. If you do manage to find one, I highly doubt it has any mechanical implications, because it's not present on the Archives of Nethys anywhere, and if it was indeed a genuine game term or mechanic of the game, it would be used as a word. But it's not.

If you don't like the rule, just acknowledge you are going to houserule it for your table and move on, because there is absolutely nothing you have that can thwart text outright contradicting your claim.

Pointless thread revival was pointless because the rules already covered this. You cannot use Breath Weapon on consecutive turns without an ability or effect recharging it for you, I already cited the rule that states this, if nobody wants to read it or chooses to ignore it for their home games, that's their prerogative, but it's still incorrect from a RAW (and RAI) standpoint.

Hello all!

I am Gming an Age of Ashes game in which the players have just hit level 16. This particular player has been above the curve for a while now, but I am unsure of how to challenge him within the rules. Any and all advice is appreciated!!!

He is a level 16 rogue with:
Legendary Sneak
Foil Senses
Cloak of Elvenkind (greater)
Boots of Elvenkind

He is exclusively melee. Usually he begins combat un noticed and attacks with his weapon. At that point, he should become hidden? Then he will use his cloak and adds the greater invisibility condition to himself for 10 minutes. Between the "always sneaking" and invisibility, I don't see a way to target him aside from a big AoE attack.

Would monsters using the "seek" action be able to target? If so, would he be concealed, hidden, or observed upon a success? The multiple layers and redundancy of these conditions are confusing to me. Again any advice on how to challenge him is appreciated. Thank you all in advance!

As a quick clarification, Greater Invisibility (or rather, 4th rank Invisibility) only lasts 1 minute, not 10 minutes. In addition, because he has Legendary Sneak, him having access to 4th rank Invisibility is only helpful outside of his turn on certain situations, since making such strikes will bring you out of stealth, meaning this only saves him actions to make more strikes (at a penalty, I might add).

Also, for the record, Legendary Sneak only lets you count as "always sneaking/avoiding notice" for exploration; you must still spend actions to Hide or Sneak during an encounter, meaning if he simply goes invisible during an encounter, he must still Hide/Sneak to go back to being Undetected; the creatures will still know his square until he does so, meaning even if he simply Strides, the creatures will know where he moved to.

There are ways to overcome Invisibility, but as far as simply being Hidden is concerned, that's less likely due to Legendary Sneak being a bonkers-broken feat, especially when combined with Sneak Adept and Foil Senses, as the only way to properly find somebody simply using Stealth is to resort to the Sneak action.

Of course, there are still ways to overcome this, especially since he is simply using 4th rank Invisibility, and not Disappearance, so all is not lost to make things difficult.

1. See the Unseen/Truesight. There are numerous monsters with these constant special abilities active. This means his Invisibility becomes almost pointless and he has to waste actions using stealth instead; this means he is less mobile as well as less offensive, and if he is not using stealth, then he is a sitting duck to beat down quite easily, and since it's merely a 4th level effect, a base Truesight ability is usually more than enough to outright negate it, whereas a heightened Truesight might be enough to negate even Disappearance.

2. Tremorsight/Blindsight/Lifesight/Echolocation. Again, monsters have all kinds of crazy senses, and while this won't outright help you deal with his sneaking, it does the same as #1, in that he has to waste actions on stealth instead of attacking, moving, etc. In addition, this is great in throwing the rogue off-guard in the sense that he may think he is invincible thanks to his Invisibility, but when an enemy can precisely see him despite his Invisibility, he may be attacked for a round or two, forcing him to back off and rethink his tactics, or again, forcing him to use stealth, which likewise takes away from his offensive capabilities as well as his mobility. In addition, creatures with reactions can definitely surprise the rogue. Of course, if the rogue player wises up and manages to acquire Disappearance, these won't do any good, so take this one with a grain of salt.

3. Flight/High Mobility. If your rogue is only able to fight on the ground, using flight means he will be almost useless or be required to switch to a back-up weapon, reducing his overall effectiveness. As this is a high level group, I would suspect flight has become commonplace now, meaning lacking abilities or tactics to deal with them will be a wake-up call for the rogue if he's dealt with it enough (of course, at this level, potions of flight are dirt cheap, but at least he will waste a round or two utilizing these items instead of attacking you). In addition, it's hard to maintain both flight, sneaking, and offensive capabilities, meaning this is another way to strain action economy on the rogue, hurting his ability to decimate your enemies. Of course, if you don't want to throw flying enemies at your party all the time, there is utilizing high mobility for skirmish tactics not unlike what monks do, meaning the rogue is spending more actions chasing them down than actually fighting them. This can also be good in reducing the party's presence overall.

4. Focus on other party members. Speaking as someone who has had to deal with similar characters in our parties, having less raw hit points to spread the damage around means you are going to have far more characters going down due to the focusing of damage on the other characters, meaning when it comes time to dealing with the rogue, you will have far less hindrances affecting you. This might force the rogue into more of a supportive role by forcefeeding potions instead of attacking your creatures.

5. High damage reduction/Precision immunity. This one is an absolute dick move of a GM, but throwing around enemies with high physical resistances (thereby hurting the rogue's overall damage input) or being immune to precision damage (like oozes and plants, which absolutely decimates the rogue's damage source), are still valid and fair tactics for the GM to use. There is a high level feat that lets them ignore this, but I don't think they have access to it yet, nor do I think that these enemy types are common enough (especially at this level) to warrant taking it over another feat at that level.

6. Crazy high perception. This one is less obvious, but if you have an idea where the rogue might be, having monsters with absurd perception scores means that the Seek action becomes much more reliable. Yes, it's an action tax, but honestly, this means that the rogue can't just act unabated, and you can bring the pain on him with a two-action ability or just a couple strikes from powerful monsters.

7. Enforce Invisibility/stealth rules on both sides of the table. Remember, Invisibility/stealth does not discriminate, whether it's for monsters or party members. If your party healer cannot see invisible/stealthed creatures, that means they cannot target them with targeted effects, like a Heal or Heroism spell. This means that the rogue has to be a lot more careful with their tactics, otherwise if they are in a pinch and need support, certain activities will be reduced in effectiveness, or eliminate that from them entirely, depending on the circumstances.

Quote:

They do, but the idea that a creature has absolutely zero senses is all that matters for disallowing Seek, not whether that given sense is relevant to detecting them. Whether they are precise, imprecise, or vague, doesn't matter for Seek.

This argument makes zero sense to me. You have no senses that can perceive the target, but you have a nose so it doesn't count?

Quote:

I mean, it's not that hard to narratively explain how an enemy that is undetected can be eviscerating enemies from melee (cuts and slashes show up on a creature), ranged (arrows flying out of a random space into a creature), or magic (magical glyphs with a green ray streaking out in a given square) that the idea of being unable to be found out isn't outside the realm of impossibility. The enemies would still be hidden because you can't precisely tell their location, but you can see projectiles and such emanating from the square they're fired from. Honestly, the trickiest part would be melee attacks with a Reach weapon, since those can be done from a distance without obvious direction.

You can just walk up to the enemy, stab them, and walk somewhere else. A wound does appear, but who knows where you went after that? A gap in the sound spectrum could reveal where you went, but they'd have to Seek you to find that gap first. Arrows can also be hidden with Invisible Item, and by that level you can cast Invisible Item with an unlimited duration, so ammunition isn't an issue.

No, I am saying that having even just vague senses is enough for a Seek action, and that the only way that a Seek action doesn't work is if you are already equivalent to a corpse, which coincides with the general rules for Seeking hidden or undetected foes anyway. Otherwise being able to Seek any sort of undetected or hidden foe makes no sense mechanically or narratively.

That is true; hit and run tactics would be the superior play, but again, if the general rules are that you must Sneak to go back to being undetected, then you would be observed (aka hidden in that square) from the square you made an attack or cast a spell from, and you would have to successfully Sneak for them to not know where you moved to.

Interesting note about the Invisible Item spell, but sadly that is only one object/ammunition per casting, and you would have to be able to at least have See the Unseen active for you to actually reasonably use it, which, while mostly trivial, isn't entirely helpful for a non-spellcaster. That is a good idea in the future, though.

Easl wrote:

That sounds like a great build for Ruby Phoenix or another high level campaign. But, sometimes it's not the destination it's the journey. "My level 8+..." is for many campaigns close to the destination, it's not the journey. So I'm happy to see cleric get a class archetype that gives 'aura gish' as a hit-the-ground-running option.

At low level, the Battle Harbinger is fine as a bunch of rank 1 spells is a nice feature up to level 4. It's at level 5 that their Font starts being lackluster. At level 7, it's hardly a feature and that's the moment where you'll feel like a second grade character.

And while I agree the journey is important, no one cares about a character effectiveness at level 1. The end of the journey is much more important than the beginning.

I mean, a lot of the mechanical benefits of their 1st rank spells are not unlike the Bard's, and if a Bard can maintain +1's from 1 to 20 and be considered a powerhouse class, so can the Battle Herald.

Bard still has better proficiencies, scaling, and spell list, but this is coming across as if a +1 status bonus to attack rolls or AC is bad after 5th level, when the tight math and constant relevance says otherwise.

Darksol is right that Take Cover behind a tower shield is taking cover - as in it provides the increased bonus to AC and reflex saves against damaging effects, but considering several "as usual, you can't Hide with this cover because your position is still obvious" entries exist I doubt you'll find a GM willing to allow you to Hide behind it. See Portable Weapon Mount (Tripod, Shielded) and Shield Wall for similar items used for cover

I do disagree that you can't be Hiding behind it; I would personally amend that you can only be Hidden while taking cover with it, since your shield is still detected, and it's clear enough you are using the shield as cover to Hide behind, but at the end of the day, the rules are pretty clear on what you can and can't do with it here, and it's not even that fancy to allow anyway.

I want an intelligence KAS divine caster. Aka, a necromancer in all senses of the term. Including the literal translation of "dead prophecy", speaking to the dead

Was playing the new Dragon Age, and the mourn watch have captured my imagination

I do agree that the current state of necromancy is terrible for wizardry/arcane casters. Even though it is often touted in the story that necromancers are powerful mages, the mechanics just don't match that concept, meaning the only truly viable necromancers are NPCs.

If you don't think See the Unseen works because "no sense can detect you," why would you think See the Unseen even works against normal invisibility? See the Unseen applies to your sense of sight. You know, the thing normal invisibility is supposed to always make you undetected against.

Because it specifically says it targets the invisible condition, not the undetected condition. The spell makes you undetected, not invisible. Hence why the argument of "you can't see a goblin in a bush" was brought up, since we are equating being undetected and being invisible as the same condition.

What does Invisible do?

Oh, right. It causes the creature to be Undetected to everyone using vision as their only precise sense.

So 'being invisible' and 'counting as invisible' both mean that you are Undetected to people looking for you and See the Unseen does interact.

Invisible as a condition does nothing because the spell doesn't convey that condition. Here's what it says:

You shroud a creature from others' senses. The target becomes undetected, not just to sight but to all senses, allowing the target to count as invisible no matter what precise and imprecise senses an observer might have.

So, the spell makes the target undetected. Not invisible, undetected. What does undetected do? It doesn't make you invisible, that's for sure. Even if you wanted to argue it does, it applies to all senses. That includes the ability to see invisible creatures, and if you want to disagree with that, then petition Paizo to remove that entry from the relevant Beastiaries/Monster Core books.

And that is what sounds like trying to game the system by nit-picking the wording.

No, gaming the system is saying a 2nd level spell trumps an 8th level spell by ignoring the intent behind the spell effect. The Disappearance spell is literally four times the spell level of the effect, and even counteracting-based effects of significantly higher level are nowhere near as effective.

"Count as invisible" is not the same as being invisible. You do not have the invisible condition while the spell is active. You have the undetected condition. See the Unseen does nothing against undetected foes, only invisible foes. Therefore, there is zero interaction with these effects.

I think we can agree that weapon groups are bad for class fantasy.

It was a bad decision to tie them to a single type of item, ("SWORDS!!!!") instead being associated with a holistic martial style ("I'm a desert nomad, so I'm good with the sword, spear, and the bow; this is my friend the sea raider with proficiency in the axe, shield, and polearm").

Trying different stuff is the fun in RPGs, and siloing players so much is a minus.

Except the game design severely punishes carrying around numerous types of weapons, nor is it common practice to walk around with an armory of weapons. Even one back-up weapon is more than likely a waste of gold and won't usually be more efficient than simply sticking with your main weapon and suffering the penalties. It's just more pronounced for Fighters due to proficiency discrepancies.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

This is coming across as wanting the Fighter to do more than what it already does, and it honestly doesn't need it.

Then what's the point of picking the Fighter over the Champion, Monk, Ranger, Gunslinger, Examplar, Barbarian, Thaumatheurge, Magus, Commander, Guardian or even the Kineticist?

Legendary Proficiency? The devs literally forgot to apply this to Advanced Weapons, which would have been the best selling point.

Advanced Weapons? I just mentioned that you cannot get Legendary Proficiency with them unless you pick a feat that treats every Advanced weapon from one group as Martial weapons... because even what you receive at 13th level does nothing. Really Paizo? Not even "Expert in ONE Advanced Weapon of your choice"?

Reactive Strike? The Barbarian, Champion and Swashbuckler can get it via a feat, the Thaumatheurge via the Weapon Implement and the Marshal grants it as an archetype. Other classes may get it as well. Sure, you get Tactical Reflexes, but as an optional feat, NOT as a baked-in class feature that upgrades it for free. I swear, Tactical Reflexes is the new Weapon Specialization feat in P2E.

Shield Block? Again, what if I do NOT want to use a shield? It would have been better if shield-less fighters could use Shield feats using Parry weapons, gauntlets or such.

Archetyping? Everyone and their mothers are using the Free Archetype rule. If that specific rule was applied only to the Fighter all the time, whether you use it or not, then it would be better.

As much as you can defend the class's customization aspect, it lacks a clean direction and class features that I cannot get elsewhere.

Better feats, proficiencies, scaling, and flavor compared to those classes. Plus, it's almost stupid easy to play while still putting up amazing numbers. Those other classes are significantly harder to plan around, or have inherent weaknesses. Like, the only "weakness" a Fighter has is against non-Fear based Will Saves (of which Fear effects are a very common form of Will Saves).

Advanced Weapons are mostly a trap, which is sadly a holdover from PF1's Exotic Weapons. Very few builds utilized them in PF1, and very few builds utilize them in PF2, simply because taking feats for very little benefit is almost never worth it. There are maybe one or two weapons where it is worthwhile, but it's not worth the feats for them most of the time. But if Paizo actually made Advanced Weapons truly, you know, Advanced, I would understand their reasoning behind delaying Advanced Weapon progression, otherwise it's just overcautious balancing.

Again, like the Fighter absolutely needs that feature baked into its class. It's solid for a large amount of builds, but Archer Fighters definitely don't need it, and will probably take something else.

There isn't a way for that to work, and even if you did find a way, it will be purposefully worse (as if it isn't already), and the only thing worse than broken/destroyed shields are broken/destroyed weapons.

I play with 3 groups, and we only do a bonus 2nd level dedication feat; just because it's popular doesn't make it the baseline nor the system's assumption. At best you can make that claim for APs designed around it, but again, that doesn't mean every other game plays the exact same way.

If anything, I find it harder to build for other classes compared to Fighter. A lot of their builds are really defined by feats requiring specific loadouts or weapon types, which you can identify with maybe a couple minutes of reading their feats.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

One is Medic dedication, and in actual play, on a Forensic Medicine Investigator; this amplifies their non-magical healing capacity from A-tier to S-tier by nature of improving its Battle Medicine healing, as well as increasing its frequency in-combat as well as throughout the adventuring day.Without it, the in-combat healing would be A-tier at the most, or more accurately, B-tier compared to Chirurgeon Alchemist (who could probably reach SS-tier with it).

That is still available without Free Archetype. Like I said way back here, "I think the mistake many people make is in comparing a Free Archetype build with a build that uses no archetypes at all. That is not the comparison that is needed. The comparison should be between a Free Archetype build and a build using the standard archetype rules."

That may be an S-tier ability. But it is an S-tier ability that is available with the default rules. Free Archetype didn't add it.

All Free Archetype is adding to the build is giving back the Class feat slots so that they can used for other things instead of having to spend those Class feat slots on the Medic archetype feats.

Free Archetype doesn't add tiers, but it makes otherwise available tiers far easier to access by not having to compete with class feats. If I had a class feat that boosts one role to A-tier, but an archetype that boosts another role to S-tier, Free Archetype eliminates having to make that choice. So now, instead of being simply S-tier in one role, versus A-tier in another role, I am both. No compromise. Compared to a character that had to make that choice, they are inferior to them when that addition is added.

Another way to look at it is that it practically doubles your available feats, and if you were going to make a build that was going to archetype anyway, well now you can archetype even more than before, and if you weren't before, then you aren't out anything if it's implemented. To suggest that's not a power boost, regardless of whether you were going to multiclass with the character or not, is absurd.

I'm going to try explaining this one more time.

Because I think this is just a terminology difference, not even a difference of opinion.

Power is how high you can get a number. Or how powerful of an ability you have - how many targets it affects and such. I'll get to that later.

Flexibility is how many high numbers you can get.

So a standard character will have some A-tier powerful numbers, a few more B-tier numbers, and some C-tier or lower numbers.

A Free Archetype character will have more A-tier numbers. But they still won't have any S-tier or SS-tier numbers.

So by my terminology, Free Archetype is adding flexibility - more A-tier numbers. It is not adding power - S-tier or SS-tier numbers.

And I think you can even agree with that.

My agreement would be rooted in complacency, because there are archetypes that exist which can indeed increase the tiers of their character/class rankings. Does it require serious system mastery to achieve? Probably. Does that mean we can disregard them because they aren't really commonly shown in play? Again, not really, since we are posing a question of what the system can permit, and not what is typically chosen as players, and let me tell you, most players will not make characters that will absolutely body the system because the amount of players that are power-gamers or min-maxers are many times less than those who are casual or RP-gamers.

I will disagree that an archetype cannot grant S-tier capabilities, especially in regards to certain roles. There are numerous examples of these tier-increasing archetypes. One is Medic dedication, and in actual play, on a Forensic Medicine Investigator; this amplifies their non-magical healing capacity from A-tier to S-tier by nature of improving its Battle Medicine healing, as well as increasing its frequency in-combat as well as throughout the adventuring day. Without it, the in-combat healing would be A-tier at the most, or more accurately, B-tier compared to Chirurgeon Alchemist (who could probably reach SS-tier with it). Another is Psychic dedication on a Magus with the likes of Imaginary Weaponry, boosting their burst capacity to SS-tier (ranged or melee, it matters not), and as of recently, the Exemplar dedication on any given martial (and even Alchemist with Horn of Plenty, but thankfully that is rarity locked). There are more if you dig deep enough in the forums or in the system, but these are the ones that instantly come to mind.

If I were to rank two different characters/classes, with the only difference being that one has more overall higher rankings than the other, I would still rank one over the other. Ergo, even without the claim of archetypes bumping character roles to S-tier, your argument of "adding more A-tiers to a class doesn't make it stronger" is debunked by proxy of the ranking system previously implemented. Again, at best you would say that it doesn't add more game-breaking power to the class. However, power, whether it breaks the game or not, is still power. A character starting with a free healing potion at the start of the game isn't overpowered, but it's definitely more powerful than that same character that isn't starting with a free healing potion.

So Cleric in book, receives a class archetype that changes their spellslots progression to be the same as the Magus and Summoner so they can get proficiency increase of the average martial character, expert at 5 and Master at 13.

It also changes their font from Heal/Harm to Bless and Bane with the option to add Benediction and Malediction with a level 4 feat. It gets legendary class DC that can be used in the place of spellcasting for battle auras, but the spellcasting dc by itself caps at expert.

The feats resolves mainly about sustaining the battle auras, but have one that gives studious spells like slots of Magus that have a few buff spells and Sure strike, as well another that works like the runes on weapon of champion (pre-remaster).

It's a cool archetype, though I don't really like the fact that the font are rank 1 spells without heightened effects outside of counteract their opposites.

This is just a worse trade-off compared to what I initially proposed they treated the Warpriest several months ago, which was to make Warpriest a Wave Caster with Channel Smite baked into the class and proper full Martial progression (they would still have their Fonts). AKA Divine Magus without the cantrip spam.

All they really get out of this is Legendary Class DCs (not Spell DCs, big difference there, especially since they cap at Expert, but that can be fixed with spellcasting MCDs), relatively faster weapons progression, and Master Armor. It's not worth losing the full casting, Font nerf, and still maintaining somewhat useful progression.

There is wanting to poach things to make yourself different for the group/personal preference, and then there is "Your class has to go this route to not be garbage," which isn't just restricted to class feats, but archetype feats as well. Saying the Psychic has to pull a Magus for it to be good feels like a cop-out for criticisms regarding the Psychic (as well as technically the Magus, but at least the Magus is still definitely powerful without the obvious exploit), and Psychic isn't the only class that is like this (Wizards, Champions, certain Druids). If anything, this says that the Psychic-specific options need to be better so that there is more parity between wanting to multi-class for certain options compared to having to multi-class because the options for your class are just trash compared to even the weakest multi-class option.

While the average adventuring day is 3 moderate encounters, which are 3 rounds a piece on average, there are plenty of easier encounters (where Unleash Psyche is already overkill anyway,) and harder encounters (where it won't end in 3, 4, or even 5 rounds), so having a class that can only work for precisely 2-3 rounds of combat isn't really sensible. I remember the Barbarian in the playtest only had like 3-4 rounds of Rage determined by a flat check; that was almost immediately scrapped when the CRB got published, and was instead reinstated back to 1 minute like it was in the past. I have no clue why something similar wasn't done for Psychic. It practically screams "Spellcasting Barbarian."

I mean, the Stupefied flat check is slightly worse than a flat check from Blur or Concealed, and I've seen combats where those flat checks have never worked (out of over 10 attacks, meaning at least 2 of them should have missed on average), and combats where it's worked over 3 times from the same pool of attacks. But I have been in a group where both of our spellcasters were Stupefied 4 (from a bogus Feeblemind curse), and the amount of rage that went on for that group was enough to level a Barbarian from 1 to 20, so it's very easy to see that side of the coin, too.

Alchemist definitely still needed the help, though. I'm glad that they got some proficiency rectifications in the Remaster (though I almost wish they scaled similar to a Martial, or got Legendary Class DC, depending on their chosen field), but now I'm confused as to how the class handles its alchemy rules, since they implemented some new feature that just has me confused as to how it interacts with what was there originally. I'm also unsure as to what sort of MCDs work with the class, since it seems like taking an alchemy-based one like Herbalist or Poisoner, you know, the ones you would expect would work great with the class, is worse than literally anything else to pick from.

Incidentally, there are still several things that other classes do that the Alchemist is worse at that I wish they were better at (such as Exemplar's Horn of Plenty being able to
"force-feed" allies from 60 feet away as a single action, or Fighters having better Bomb proficiency than, well, Bombers), but I can understand the difficulties behind them being created as mechanics for the Alchemist.

So what's your opinions on Free Archetypes so far?

I'm going to run a game where the kineticist won't have any combat benefits from the rule, since it barely ties in with anything. Two new players feel it's choice paralysis.
As for the barb he's going the decay route with dual weapon warrior with necksplitters which basically lets him go nuts on damage. (2 actions, if they hit it's a 12 flat damage anyhow from rage, not counting the weapon damage itself) with No Escape at Level 3 which also grants movement as a reaction.
This was an issue in my previous games as well where the barb (who used more or less this same combo but with Vicious Strike) and fighter was the only one doing crazy numbers in damage while the others took flavorful archetypes and felt left behind in combat at least, which let's be honest, is a big aspect.
It's the most accepted variant,, but would limiting it be a good idea? Would saying something like limiting the archetypes available be a good idea.... Any experienced GMs please help me!

I don't know how they are getting a class feat at level 3, because they only get a general feat, which can only get them a level 1 class feat if they are human ancestry via Natural Ambition, of which No Escape does not qualify. Free Archetype only gives you additional dedication/archetype feats at the same levels you would normally gain class feats (besides 1st level of course), so I'm confused how they are getting this option by 3rd level.

As for limiting it, our group only allows the free 2nd level dedication feat, which means players can either just take it for a free benefit (Acrobat dedication comes to mind; free scaling Acrobatics as a 2nd level class feat is pretty bonkers), or they can take an option and pick class feats/skill feats for levels where they feel like their original options are garbage. You can restrict it further and have it be based off of a profession (like Herbalist, or the aforementioned Acrobat), or limit it specifically to character classes, but I personally felt like it wasn't necessary to do so.

This isn't a case of bad rolls, it's a case of unnecessary barriers to the class that don't serve a purpose other than to impose having a bad time.

What if the Barbarian's Rage feature meant that he had a Flat 6 DC to even make a Strike, because he's so mad because he can't see straight? What about a Rogue that has a Flat 6 DC to hit an enemy that's offguard because he accidentally startled his target, thereby causing him to get startled and ruin his approach, or a Ranger companion that has a Flat 6 DC to go after a hunted enemy because sometimes that dog just doesn't hunt? Or the Swashbuckler has to make a Flat 6 DC while having Panache because sometimes he can't stick his landing and makes himself look more like a clown than a person of flair?

That's kind of what the Unleash Psyche feels like to me, and it's just a terribly designed ability, especially when you consider classes like Animist and Sorcerer don't have such drawback gimmicks, while having the same (if not superior) benefits.

If we rebalance the Psychic cantrips and make them 3 slot casters, it might be enough to fix them.

Technically, per RAW, no, because a lot of the things that would apply to these statistics are for armor, of which a Fortress Shield is not, though I imagine that RAI is that any statistics for non-armor would default to the armor statistic rules, since there is no other intent behind them to draw from.

However, since there is no strength entry listed for the Fortress Shield, that means you could have a strength bonus of, say, +20, but wielding it gives you a -10 movement speed penalty at all times, regardless of how much strength you have.

That being said, the only thing I know of that would actually apply would be the Unburdended Iron feat from the Dwarf ancestry, since it specifies that it targets speed penalties to reduce, of which Fortress Shield is one of them.

And unfortunately, a lot of the Precious Material entries for shields state that they do not reduce the bulk or movement penalties incurred from them, even though they do for armor (such as Dawnsilver and Duskwood), meaning implementing it for shields is a houserule at-best.

Yeah, I'm confused as to why you boosted Strength as a Witch, when your claw attacks already have the Agile and Finesse traits, meaning you already key your attack bonus from Dexterity anyway, and it's not worth the bonus 3 or 4 damage to your claw attacks to sacrifice your casting stat or your Wisdom. Losing flat damage is painful in the lower levels, but it's not worth it in the long run.

I did see you take Rogue dedication for Sneak Attacker, which isn't a bad damage boost for a non-Strength combatant, but the Mobility feat is so awesome for a squishy to avoid reaction-based attacks via movement, especially when you are running around with 35 base movement (45 with Tailwind Wand). This lets you skirmish as needed (such as if you're wanting to avoid casting spells, or if you need to get out of a bad spot to cast a spell), with bonus points if Haste is active, so you can Strike, Mobility Stride, then cast a spell, all in one turn, in most any order you wish.

English is heavily contextual.

On this, we agree. But it's not a justification for ignoring clearly intentional wording of a statement to validate their response.

How about properly explaining what an instance of damage is, or how falling works, or minions outside encounter mode?

As far as priority errata goes, imo a class saves or a feat being slightly out of whack has to be really far down the list.

I think falling is pretty self-explanatory; I haven't had any issues with falling taking place both as a GM and a player, because the rules are pretty clear as to when you start falling (depending on if you engage in flying or not prior to falling), as well as the rate at which you fall.

Minions probably don't necessarily need an explanation, and is probably more dependent on the type of minion, the mission they're commanded to do, etc. There's so many variables here that it's basically best for the GM at the time to make that call based on the context of the command, as well as its capacity to follow it. I wouldn't mind guideline examples, though, such as commanding an animal companion to track an enemy's footprints, or a familiar flying onto an open window to scope out an upper floor room, but as far as hardline rules, I don't think I would like that very much, because it can strait-jacket gameplay in an undesired way.

My biggest one I think is the level 9 Rogue Feature, getting to boost all 3 saves to critical success is absurd. What do you think is somethign that really could use some Errata for balance.

I'm pretty sure it was just a copy-paste error, but I can agree that for balance purposes it needs to be reigned in.

It's entirely possible that it was meant to apply to a subset of Fortitude Saves a la Bravery (probably Poison and maybe Disease effects), but given that they didn't have this feature before in the Premaster, either from feats or otherwise, it seems unlikely that they wanted this change in the Remaster.

Anyway, the other two I would recommend is for Psychic to be bumped to a proper 3 slot caster (because Cantrips+ isn't really a powerful enough feature for it to make them a weaker spellcaster than even a Cleric, Bard, Druid, or Witch), and for Magus to be able to not trigger reactions from casting a spell via Spellstrike while in Arcane Cascade, giving them more incentive to use that feature without having to risk nullifying their entire turn because they are going up against one of the few enemies that actually has Reactive Strike.

I do have more, but they are far more ambitious and probably not something that can be accomplished with simple errata.

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

So with the Focus Point Refocus changes and both the classes of Animist at level 10 and beyond, also with Oracles now receiving 4 slots of spells each rank can Psychics get an Errata to be come 3 slot-casters? Instead of this odd focus point master which sits along side Druids and Monks.

I think they could definitely do with a bit of a look, but I'd much rather they make the rest of their kit more powerful than make them a 3 slot caster. That'd be a power boost in the most generic way, I think it'd be a lot more fun for them to keep their current identity instead.

While I can understand the importance of class identity, Cantrips+ isn't very compelling as a class identity, because Cantrips+ isn't going to do very much compared to most any other class feature (and is easily poached by other classes). Heck, I'd even say Familiars are a stronger class identity by comparison, and I absolutely can't stand Familiars.

And yes, 3 slot casting is boring, but it's also the most streamlined boost to grant and also the easiest to implement with errata, all without compromising class power/budget. Really, if 3 slot casting is the bare minimum (barring Wave Casting, of which Psychics are not), then bumping them to the bare minimum likewise doesn't invalidate the opportunity to either implement something more interesting (if Paizo is willing to put forth the effort and staffing to do so), or to break the balance of the game, all while making a fair amount of players happy/happier with the class.

Plus we have a few examples of 3 slot casters being more than potent with the likes of Druids, Bards, Clerics, and Witches (not to mention potentially Wizards and Animists as well), and if we consider Cantrips+ to be a comparable feature to Druids versatility, Clerics Fonts, Bards Composition Spells, and Witches Familiars, then there really isn't a serious issue to provide them with that buff.

Howdy! It's been a while since I've played Pathfinder, but it looks like I might be getting a chance to try the remastered rules soon. I'm planning on creating a divine caster of Desna, and I was wondering if anyone could give me some advice here.

We only have the original 3 core books available (yes, I know there's AoN, but we'd like to just use the stuff we actually spent money on), so I'm looking at Cloistered Cleric alongside Faith Witch for my class. Not sure which to try, cuz I'm having trouble appraising the focus spells/deity spells and class feats, but both seem like they could be fun (I'm also only JUST NOW noticing that Clerics don't rely on Charisma anymore).

Also wondering about good ancestries. Like I said, only Player Core for PCs, so I'm thinking about grabbing a versatile heritage since we've got limits on choice. Any suggestions? I was thinking about an Angelkin or Musetouched Nephilim to represent Elysium ancestry, but I don't know.

Any and all help is appreciated :)

Desna is interesting as a Cleric, and gets some solid Domains between Moon, Luck, and Travel. Moon comes with a solid damage focus spell with a potent buff spell as an Advanced Domain. Luck is nice for boosting ally's saves, as well as a nice Reaction for yourself later on down the line. Travel is awesome for movement for yourself, giving yourself bonus movement, or the ability to swim and eventually Fly as a focus spell, are both solid.

Faith Witch? Is this a Free archetype/dual class game, or are you wanting to invest class feats into a Witch dedication? Not trying to hate on the decision, but it's a little surprising, as there are honestly better dedications to take as a Cleric, such as Druid dedication (being able to pick up some nukes/buffs/debuffs from the Primal list is nice), or Medic dedication (having some non-magical healing options is imperative as well, and you can wombo-combo them with your magic as well for some super healing). Some of the Primal spells can also synergize quite well with Desna' schtick, so it's not a bad idea IMO. If Faith Witch wasn't Intelligence-based, I wouldn't question it as much.

Human has solid ancestry feat choices, between Natural Ambition (1st level class feat, awesome for Cleric), General Training, and eventually Multitalented. Gnome is solid for Lore skills and some Illusion benefits, but that's more for Intelligence-based/Arcane benefits, with some slight options for Primal effects, meaning you will lean more into Nephilim for feat choices here; the big draw is getting innate Darkvision thanks to Nephilim. Halflings have focus on sneaking and Luck-based effects (which can lead into Desna's Luck Domain effects), so it's definitely passable. Just remember for Halfling and Gnome that you will probably need to be careful of your carrying capacity due to that Strength penalty.

For Heritages, Musetouched is nice for a spellcaster with Acrobatics training, since it makes it easier for you to break out in case a big bad grabs/eats you. Angelkin is more of a societal/Intelligence thing, since it improves Society and grants the Multilingual feat, and being Wisdom-based (or Charisma-based), you got better skills to focus on, between either Medicine, Religion, Survival, Nature, etc.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The problem is that the reprint turns what used to be a core rule/ability into an optional rule/ability

Given that all rituals are rarity locked they were already optional rules. So they've gone from something you need your GM to enable for you to something you need your GM to enable for you.

What a strawman. Rarity and Mythic are not the same, any more than Rarity and Free Archetype are the same.

They are different assumptions of rules and different hoops to jump through. Many more GMs will be permissive of Rarity versus an entire variant rule like Free Archetype, or in this case, Mythic.

It buffed them, since it means you roll the main check with mythic proficiency--- which makes something like Imprison way better.

It is only a buff if your table is (or will be) using Mythic rules. It is otherwise not feasible for any other table because the old rituals don't exist now.

Speaking as a GM running Kingmaker with a Wrestler Monk, he has severely inconvenienced bosses and numerous enemies with his grappling capabilities, all without Restraining foes. Between his Crushing Grab dealing constant damage, forcing flat checks to cast spells, and bosses forcing their actions to deal with him instead of other foes, it is actually quite potent.

The complaint of "Grapple doesn't do much" is most likely because it is being used against foes who are as strong if not stronger than the Monk, which is just poor tactics anyway. It would be like using Rogues on Plants and Oozes, or Will Saves on Mindless foes; you're just going to have a bad time.

-snip-

The problem is that a lot of this is when you are making a "fresh" character of that level, not that it is a character that has naturally progressed to that point, which are generally going to have more loot as a result. You also get even less overall if you go for the Lump Sum versus the staged item levels (which isn't really that bad, just a -1 to saves compared to "natural" Level 20 PCs, and maybe less circumstantial runes).

So, the progression for this is 1 19th level item, 2 18th level items, 1 17th level item, 2 16th level items, as well as 20,000 gold in raw currency.

We know a +3 Major Striking weapon is 19th level, and we know +3 Greater Resilient Armor is 18th, and that 17th is your Apex item (usually), meaning we have another 18th level item, as well as 2 16th level items to pick from, and 20,000 gold in raw currency.

Recreating this concept character, you can have the extra 18th level item be either the Indestructible Shield (Hardness 17, almost unlimited HP), or one of your high-end Runes (I think Greater Brilliant Energy is a Level 18 rune), since you can later pick up the Major Sturdy Shield as one of your 16th level items (same hardness at Indestructible, but just has limited HP).

Your two 16th level items can be whatever; for your back-up, a +3 Greater Striking would be acceptable, and maybe making your main weapon out of High Quality Silver or Cold Iron, depending on what your campaign is expected to commonly face (Devils, Werecreatures, and Vampires? Go Silver. Demons and Fey? Go Cold Iron).

From there, you have 20,000 gold to work with, meaning you can pick up both the Greater [Element] and Greater Vitalizing runes on your main weapon, leaving you with 9,000 gold for lesser items/other runes/consumables.

So, looking at the main build, you have:

+3 Major Striking main weapon with 3 powerful runes, worth 85,000 gold
+3 Greater Resilient armor (no runes though), worth 24,000 gold
+3 Greater Striking sub weapon, with a potential rune if needed, worth at least 10,000 gold
Apex Item for Strength (you forgot this in your initial calculations; kind of important, as you're concerned about meeting the 'baseline' for items), worth 15,000 gold
Major Sturdy Shield (or Indestructible Shield if you don't want your Greater Brilliant Energy rune), worth 13,750 (or 24,000 gold if you don't take the Brilliant Energy rune, but you're losing net gold if you do this)
And 9000 play-around gold.

Total that, and you get 156,750 gold in terms of items. Compared to Lump Sum, you are losing approximately 25% of your overall wealth, all so you can access Level 20 items (which, other than getting +1 to all saves, isn't worth the price).

Disregarding the Lump Sum, you are meeting a majority of your item demands, the only things you are majorly missing are +1 to All Saves, and a fully-functional back-up weapon (which, honestly, who cares at this point; it would make more sense to improve your existing options by either buying Armor runes, or other worn items, like Perception or Resistance items).

Why would you buy 2 Major Striking runes when Greater Doubling Rings are like a quarter of the price?

Well, you can't wield two weapons simultaneously if you're using a shield, and even if you weren't wielding a shield, a common ranged weapon (shortbow) requires both hands to attack with, meaning Doubling Rings aren't a valid option. Heck, it doesn't even work with thrown weapons because once the weapon leaves your hand, it loses the runes provided from the Doubling Rings.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I really think Paizo should take another passover for these recent Rarity options, because it's starting to feel more and more like Rarity is being used to gatekeep powerful options instead of gatekeeping regional or truly inaccessible options, like it was originally intended to do.

I think this is interesting, but also is probably impossible at this point.

Like you point out in talking about the spirit warrior archetype, it becomes a lot more powerful if the GM is using other variant rules. Expecting the developers to balance every new thing in the game against every possible variant rule is just not feasible, and giving things rarity tags that might be disruptive in certain games with certain rules in play feels like a very good use of the rarity tag.

GMs need to take accountability for balancing their games with the various variant rules they want to use. I think using uncommon and rare tags on most newer material is going to be pretty necessary moving forward as we have so many different variant rules in play, in APs and adventures now.

Deviant Abilities and Free Archetype are already in existing APs and we are certainly going to be getting some mythic ones in the not too distant future. I'd argue that PF2 is definitely hitting a point where are so many different ways to play it that just assuming everything is going to work just fine and be perfectly balanced no matter what variants you throw together is just not a good idea. Common stuff really needs to be reserved for "this can be thrown into just about anything and be fine." Everything else needs some kind of flag for players to talk to their GMs before making assumptions about using it.

I don't expect rules to be given a rarity tag because there are optional rules that might be added to a game that greatly changes the power dynamic, though; rarity tags weren't designed with optional rules in mind. They were designed almost entirely for regional/exclusive options, either from APs, or from unique parts of the world. Very rarely will rarity be used to gatekeep power options (like Teleport, Speed/Keen runes, etc). Except now, I feel like it's being used for gatekeeping power options more and more, which isn't the point of Rarity.

It's different if you have a published adventure either advocating or outright requiring them, because now any rewards or encounters within the game will be balanced with the assumption that those options are in place. Like, we could have some ridiculous fights in Mythic campaigns when the book both rewards and gives you guidance/expectations on the power levels of those campaigns. It's not the case when you have an adventure that is written without those options, nor can it be considered possible, since the game isn't balanced around these options being commonplace. Mythic would be the current biggest problem now, since you will have Mythic PCs trouncing around non-Mythic enemies (even if by design), and it ultimately becomes the GM's job to balance the Mythic implementation for enemies, likely reserving Mythic benefits for boss-type creatures, and it being potentially largely different if the AP was balanced with the assumption Mythic rules would be in play.

Sure, we can say "Well, if the GM is playing the game different from the standard rules, they should accommodate those changes," but honestly, this feels more like "GMs who want an easy playstyle shouldn't implement alternate rulesets, even if they like them better than the standard rulesets." And really, even if we didn't consider alternate rulesets, even just having a different class from the Main 4 can create weird power imbalances, either for good or for ill of the adventuring party, yet for the most part, rarity has been used for setting/regional access.