Darth Grall's page

Either unnerf Multiclass Monk Archetype Flurry or nerf Spirit Warrior's Combined Strikes. Sure it is not as powerful but being able to use a d10 Finesse weapon into a 1d6 Agile Fist is kinda silly and makes MC Monk Flurry of Blows seem silly to nerf when it is a level 10 feat vs a level 2 Dedication ability.

Which by the way 1d10 Finesse weapon into a 1d6 Agile Fist is the same as 1d8 Tiger/Wolf Stance twice with Flurry of Blows.

What d10 finesse weapon is there??? I haven't seen one from Paizo above a d8 or is there something else pumping up the die size?

And my DM is definitely a follower of RAW & we play in Foundry & rely on a lot of the automation so finding this out as I was updating my build was pretty disappointing.

Also worth noting that my DM wasn't a fan of these updates breaking existing builds either & decided to just allow the Gun Sword anyways. Not sure how to get get the automated features to work in Foundry though but it's a start at least.

Darth Grall wrote:

Just realized the remaster killed my Inventor build because the invention can only be level 0 weapons and not a Gun Sword... Why did they prohibit level 1 weapons for level 0's?

I think because the role of making totally mundane items level 1 (or higher) is to signpost "brand new level 1 PCs probably shouldn't have this" so you don't want to let the inventor get around that. Like you technically could afford Full Plate at level 1, but it will cost 100% of your starting wealth so it's a bad idea. Normally this is fine since proficiency operates in big bins like "heavy armor" and "martial weapons" but the inventor cares about their specific innovation.

I really don't think that's intuitive & equating it to full plate doesn't make sense to me since a gunsword is only 13 GP and not double the typical starting wealth. But more over, I think that it's a flavor mismatch, what class makes more sense for a Gun Sword than a mad inventor when (up until recently) the weapon wasn't very good?

I think a friendly GM would probably let you rebuild your innovation as a similar level 1 item in downtime later though. That seems like a simple and easy to apply houserule that solves a problem.

I'm not sure what you mean here, what other weapons are similar? Everthing else is finesse-y or not a sword so it doesn't really seem like a good fit. Combinations are a pretty narrow set of weapons last I looked too.

And my DM is definitely a follower of RAW & we play in Foundry & rely on a lot of the automation so finding this out as I was updating my build was pretty disappointing.

Just realized the remaster killed my Inventor build because the invention can only be level 0 weapons and not a Gun Sword... Why did they prohibit level 1 weapons for level 0's?

Class Gunslinger
Issue Triggerbrand Salvo + Stab & Blast

Both feats share the same text so they're both in need of correction imo, but the issue is that these feats don't outline what happens for MAP if you only make 1 attack when you missed on the first attack.

... This counts as two attacks toward your multiple attack penalty, but you don't apply the multiple attack penalty until after making both attacks.

The bold section above makes it feel like it really only increase by 2 attacks if you actually make both attacks but RAW is that it counts as two attacks even if you only make 1 since the first attack has to hit to get the second & it's not clarified either way. However this feels bad since it's a flourish action and as a gunslinger in Melee you're already at a disadvantage in terms of AB so it feels super punishing to miss with the first attack.

I've seen folks say that Combination Weapons are bad enough that they'd allow them to only take 1 attack on MAP on the miss anyways but not every DM is as generous on that ruling, so I'd like to see this errata'd if the consensus is it actually should work that way.

Trip.H wrote:

My biggest worry is not the bugs, but this "Mask up, always" behavior Paizo seems to have.

To be fair, I've seen this attitude in ALL of the TTRPG companies I've seen. It's not unique to Paizo.

The developers of Star Wars Saga publically threatened to shoot me "with tranquilizer darts over the internet, if they could," because of how often I pointed out these kinds of mistakes to them.

WotC was even worse. They simply closed down their official forums to shut us up.

This certainly is the standard for sure (minus the joke/threat I think). FFG even had obscure dev quotes clarifying interactions for their Star Wars system & ultimately deleted their forums too. So it's sorta funny how similar the playbook for this stuff is (I pray Paizo never gets rid of the forums). Though as an aside, wasn't WotC also the developer of Star Wars Saga Edition or am I just wrong?

But back on point though, is Paizo perfect? Certainly no. But at least generally I feel like they're trying to do better which is more that I can say for most TTRPG devs. Like obviously a different system, but as someone who remembers the flaming around whether 1e Monks should be good in combat (AoMF costs, Dr vs enhancement, whether unarmed attacks were "weapons", and a bunch of other stuff that basically was emergent from 1e being based on 3.5) it was super cool to see Monk's being objectively good martials in 2e. It does give the sense that they're listening to feedback, even if they are ultimately slow to act on it. That might be a low bar, but it is still better than their competition it seems.

Thank you for your replies! Glad I wanted to clarify how this works in a vacuum and you did.

The reason I asked in the first place was that my DM has dropped an item on an NPC with an installation of [u]12[/u] for a Cybertech heart that frankly does some crazy stuff (gives you the ability to detect hearts as though tremorsense, some -/DR & a con enhancement like a belt) and wanted to affirm that's how it'd work. Obviously, if you heart stops working you'll have to deal with more than just the -4 to all saves and the ones considering it are our martials who frankly don't have good INT. Thanks for confirming all!

So first time dealing with the Cybertech rules, I imagine it could be for other folk too since I didn't see anything on it, but what happens when you get drained with Cybertech components?

Cybertech Rules <-

Each piece of cybertech has an implantation value that indicates how invasive the implant is. The total combined implantation values of all cybertech implanted in a single creature can't exceed either that creature's Constitution score or Intelligence score—a creature's Constitution sets the physical limit of what its body can accept in the form of cybernetic implants, while the creature's Intelligence sets the mental limit of what its brain can control. An implant whose implantation value would cause the total to exceed either of these two scores does not function but still takes up a body slot. In addition, as long as a character has cybernetic implants installed whose combined implantation exceeds his Constitution or Intelligence, he takes a -4 penalty on all saving throws.

See the bold. So theoretically if a Barbarian had a cybertech leg got hit with some INT drain, they'd be unable to use this any longer, their leg would stop functioning right? Or are we saying this penalty, separate from the -4 to saves, only applies during installation?

Just want to be sure this makes sense before this comes up. Thanks to any & all replies in advance.

I'm aware of the limitations. Critical fusion is not a good tactic anyways for triggerbrand so I'm not worried about that. But in the range that you'd want to be at as a triggerbrand, you can play it like you would a vanguard with a harmona gun until the opportunity for salvo presents itself. The only thing that really bothers me is the 9th level deed. That thing is weird and not very useful

Oh fair, as long as you know since I think it's not obvious at a glance. I would say that critical fusion still isn't bad (Not quite good though) when you can't use Salvo (Most likely when you've already used an action with flourish) or are suffering from MAP already so you wouldn't benefit from another attack.

Agree on the 9th level deed, it's weird. But an alright back up I suppose if you don't have a flanker to assist you and give you off-guard easier.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I'm surprised the gun portion of gunsword is D10 but not the sword. Not a huge deal but it made me scratch my head

Yeah that one surprised me. The gun portion was generally okayish while the sword half is clearly a bit underbudget.

A buff is a buff, but a d8 two hander with only versatile is still really rough, especially with the Swap action in the remaster.

I'm with both of you, I'm not sold on how good the buff is and largely I'm not sure what to make of it still. It seems the perception is that with the sword end always potentially threatening a crit to take advantage of Critical fusion (and effectively boosting your damage up to D10 levels on said crit). It will remain to be seen if this actually ends up helping my PC with a Gun Sword.

I'm actually fairly excited to make a triggerbrand with a gun sword now. If you're lucky, you can pick up an obsidian edge right in time for salvo. Really great combo with those.

I don't have any right to tell you how to feel, however I would recommend you temper your expectations still. There's still some weird nonbo-ness with Gunslinger that these fixes don't address. Namely, you still don't get critical specialization with the sword end so you don't normally get to use Critical Fusion without another feat giving it to you. And be wary that some of the easy fixes for the specialization (like Mauler Dedication) are not allowed to work to their full extent because of how Singular Expertise prevents your proficiency from advancing to your firearm's level.

That said, I'd recommend playing virtually any other martial class w/ a gun sword (Fighter seems best) and just grab the gunslinger dedication so you can snag Salvo at 12. At 5 most martial classes give you your specialization and while at 6 you won't have Salvo you can still do some combination weapon things until you can get it.

Or remove incapacitation and allow item bonuses to save DCs.

I think that's the main thing but I also think delayed progression in proficiency is also something that is abrasive to 1e players. Spell attacks are way weaker than they were in PF1e largely because there isn't an easier AC to hit (Touch AC was often way lower than regular AC, so higher CR threats became much easier for casters to interact with than martials) it means spells like Scorching Ray sorta suck compared to 1e vs 2e solo enemies with good AC. So getting them back up to parity with martials would be another thing to help make them feel more like 1e casters.

Now all that is to say, I wouldn't recommend those changes. 1e casters were sometimes god-like (IIRC one of the first PF1e optimization guides I read was Treantmonk's God Wizard Guide which is why I use the term) and I don't want to go back to that as a DM or a player; but if that's what you want these changes would probably do the job. Thought I would recommend instead just focusing on things that don't really use your DC or spell attack modifier as that seems easier than getting your DM to rework 2-3 mechanics to make you stronger.

I.. just want magic to actually feel fun and impactful again, tbh. That mixed with there not being such a vice-tight iron-grip stranglehold on the math. But eehhhh, I'm probably just jaded from previous experiences trying to use magic in the system.

I just want to feel like I'm actually doing something. If they could do something with the magic in 2E about that, I'd be very happy.

I haven't felt that way as a caster in PF2e, but it is different from 1e. I've only played as a Cleric as a healer and though I've felt super empowered (single target heals or big AOE Channels vs undead are a trip!) I've also seen the Witch in our party constantly fills the gaps in our formation with summons (to tank/soak up damage), AOE spells (to both damage & debuff), & powerful buffs (In a 10 round combat I've seen Stoke the Heart do a tremendous amount of work). I don't think it's a stretch to say they're one of the best performers in our party even if they aren't always the best at any one thing consistently.

I get it though, it's not like 1e where you could end an encounter with a single spell (Hold Person-ing a solo boss so the martial could CdG was BRUTAL) and you can't ever really catch up to martials in single target damage. But what you do get as a caster is versatility rather than straight power. I know that's harder to swallow but it is still quite fun if you can get used to it.

I kind of wish the character optimizers from 1E would flex their skills on building a hyper optimized 2E whole party. The sheer number of combos, and the lack of trivially solvable numerical problems, means building a truly optimal group is a huge challenge, especially if you're not playing with white room garbo.

The problem is that us Munchkins usually are competing with each other to some degree so you won't usually see that level of cooperation in concepting. That doesn't mean we don't like 2e though, just usually we're honing in on some pet mechanic, weapon, or feature and trying to optimize the heck out of it. For example, one of my characters is a fighter w/ gunslinger (& mauler next level) optimized around using a gun sword but it ends up being just fine due to 2e's tighter math & gun swords are a mid weapon to begin with. So the character ends up being only a decent switch hitter w/ some utility thanks to some specialty ammo & fake out. Another is our Monk who is optimized around athletics to jump well but he also has whirlwind throw & the feat to let them grapple on a flurry so they end up just being a good tank that's repositioning or disabling enemies.

All in all these disparate concepts create a group that feels about as optimal as the non-optimal groups which is fine for the most part. Though admittedly there's a bit of extra kick every now & then when someone's specialty gets time to shine. Or at least that's been my experience. But maybe there is some fantastic group out there who is capable of making parties capable of such a feat? I just doubt it XD

Dang I'm out, he was my bet. At least I called the God's alliances falling apart after his demise though! XD

Hand of The Apprentice + Spellstrike. How does this actually work out? I had done some googling but everything I found was on it was nebulous how someone could get access to this, but thanks to the remaster this seems like a more legitimate option since you can choose it with unified theory but I had some friends cast some doubt on how this actually works so I'm not sure if I'm just misreading this or what.

At a glance; Hand of the Apprentice is a 1-2 action spell that requires a spell attack roll so it qualifies for Spellstrike. When you hit with your melee attack roll, your spell is coupled with the attack. So when you hit, you what? Your sword flies out of your hands to hit the target again before returning to your hands? Effectively hit twice, once with your regular damage (including your STR) then again but with your casting modifier instead of your strength for the Hand damage?

Is that all correct? What am I missing something that makes this a particularly good combo over another damage focus spell? I mean, it does seem relatively nice in that you can effectively do this a few times every combat with the remaster focus rules, and with a D12 weapon die and some property runes you'll get some decent damage.

This one was really cool (not that they all haven't been) but I liked the subversion of expectations here with his "death" & how it affected Shelyn.

My money is still on Rovagug being the ultimate death though, since so many gods are aligned against him that his destruction is enough to spark a war both because it means something would be stronger than the combined power of several gods (or is simply able to kill them somehow in spite of their divinity) so they have to act in self-preservation and his death would also disrupt the uneasy truce several gods have.

Course, I'm sure they'll do something else just because I said so.

I see what you're saying, and I feel like that's probably how it should work, but I guess where would it say that miss chance applies to things besides attacks?

So been playing a certain PF1e module again since we'd never finished it and ran into a situation with a Forgefiend, where said monster cast deeper darkness and since they didn't have a means of overcoming it (as their sorcerer had just walked into a trap that nauseated them for 3 round) folks were stuck fighting in magical darkness (a rarity for my group since it usually gets dispelled).

Now, no one was using the concealment to hide so despite being blind everyone had a general sense of where everyone was so no wasting time to find their allies (but all the other penalties for being in darkness). However, when the warpriest tried to use a cure spell to heal an ally it was brought into question whether they needed miss chance since it was a touch spell.

So, would they have needed to roll for miss chance in total darkness? Obviously you don't need to roll to "attack" allies with touch spells under normal conditions, but in ideal conditions both folks can help it hit. Here they're blind so it feels like there should be some miss chance since neither party can "let" the other just succeed in touching them. And is there some relevant text that clarifies things here? And FYI for the sake of keeping things moving we ruled that they wouldn't this time but we'd look it up for next time and outside of a 2e example I'm not really seeing anything one way or another for 1e.

On that subject, I know 2e is another system but the wording there is more clear there where concealment just says you have to succeed on the flat check for spells to affect them so friendly spells can just miss over in this situation which is why I sorta feel like there's something I'm missing here that would point to it working similarly here.

In any case, thanks in advance for any & all replies!

Having said that, I really, truly think the worst part of the dissonance is the flintlock stuff. For something like a simple mechanical revolver to be excluded when the Inventor exists is nonsensical. Heck, just make up some kind of alchemical cartridge thing for more exotic stuff and the whole problem is solved.

I think to understand why you have to look at the development history of Golarion and understand it is because there was a combo of some people really hating firearms in their fantasy & that mechanically advanced firearms (which is what 1e called revolvers, shotguns, etc) completely made other weapons obsolete due to the mechanics of that system. So when they finally made their way to their first Alkenstar Module (IIRC Wardens Of The Forge was in '13, which was 2 years after Ultimate Combat introduced firearms in '11 as a mechanic) I think the above backlash informed them on what people would accept and settled on "early" firearms for the setting to lean closer to the fantasy elements of their world and leave more advanced stuff in their setting for Numeria or something.

However, as folks have put out up thread you will definitely see a more modern firearm around at some point either in a future AP (mechanically it shouldn't be much more than an Air Repeater with a bigger die or Lethal) or with 2e Starfinder if you just want the mechanics. Otherwise, try to look on the upside that Golarion is wide enough that it still has stuff like this rather than being just traditional fantasy!

I largely think they're in a good place. Our Monk is very happy in our home game, but that's at least in part due to the 3D Talespire Maps really rewarding their mobility and jumping ability. So I really expect them to just clean up language (FoB is definitely going away as the name, I think).

On the topic of Monks getting legendary progression for their unarmed, I don't think they need it because Legendary progression is Gunslinger/Fighter's thing and other things getting that does take away from their kit, but I could see it if it's just a capstone feature or a class archetype (we've only seen 2 IIRC, so it'd be fine if it takes away some of their existing kit to justify it).

As for what I'd like to see, I'd like to see the wording on Whirling Throw cleaned up. When our Monk first started to use it, there was a lot of debate on how it worked (Is it Forced Movement? Can't throw the baddie off the ledge then! Ah, but it doesn't use those specific terms and doesn't make sense that it can't do that, etc). So I'd just like to see it made clearer!

Funnily enough, I've had the exact opposite experience both personally and watching others attempt it.

Probably the best Switch Hitter build in 2e I've played was a 6th level Human Ranger. They were a guest PC (the party got split cause of portal-eqsue shennigans) and they had an Arquebus for some crazy high damage spikes (Pretty sure they still have the most damage dealt by a character in my group w/ 72 thanks to GB, Fatal & Precision and we're level 8 now) as well a Bastard Sword & a Steel Shield for Melee. Both the Sword & Gun had +1 Striking runes. Their feats were something like:

H - Gravity Weapon (targets you so it increases the damage on both weapons even when you switch)
1 - Animal Companion (To keep enemies at bay and help flank when I swapped to melee)
2 - Quick Draw (This was pre-remaster so swapping wasn't an option, but I could drop a weapon and then quick draw)
4 - Running Reload
6 - Mature Companion (To keep up with PCs)

They also had a bunch of alchemical ammo (Life Shot for one literally saved a real PCs life) and some random elemental ones. Once set up, they would usually try to get above enemies and the economy basically was a mix of strike, running reload, command the Animal until they got into Melee then quickdraw either Sword & Board or 2H the Bastard Sword if I had the extra economy for it. Or Reverse the order if they started in Melee and I found an opportunity to swap to Ranged.

All the above is to say that this is what I'd call fun still, since I felt just as effective in melee as in ranged, even if it doesn't meet your definition of Switch Hitting. Though I'd point out it'd probably be even better now with the new interact rules to swap weapons since I'd have an easier time switching back (no picking up weapons). Also that my current Fighter w/ Gunslinger Dedication is much more in line with the above play loop, save his Gun Sword is no longer his main weapon these (it's his backup).

Triggerbrand Salvo counts as two attacks regardless of how many attacks you actually make. So afterwards you are at -10, so I definitely stand by my statement ^^. I would personally rule against that though, simply because I would feel bad for the player and the subclass needs the help.

As a player with a GM who ruled that you're at -10 regardless of if you get the second attack, I do know the pain of that ruling.

But on the subject of Triggerbrand, it really needs a fix. Combo weapons already are not very good and with the new swap rules they feel pretty weak when you're damage die and traits are punished (why use a gunsword when I can use a greatsword in melee & an arquebus? Switch hitters were great in 1e). Singular Expertise locking you out of advancing the weapon proficiency for the melee end of the weapon makes sense perhaps for the main class, but for a triggerbrand you're effectively always at a -2 to melee vs your gun so why use it? You can't even get around it with an archetype/ancestry feat because of the wording on Expertise. Gunslinger Weapon Mastery stops you from even getting critical specialization on your melee without one of those extra archetype/ancestry feats, so you don't even get to take advantage of the Critical Fusion trait unless you can crit with melee weapons (why have a trait that doesn't work with the class that's supposedly designed to use it?!).

Ultimately the above (the Salvo ruling, expertise & mastery) that made me switch off of Gunslinger and opt for a fighter w/ gunslinger dedication instead and have been much happier since. I know fighters are generally the best with every weapon but I don't think that a Fighter should be so much better than a Gunslinger with a way that's geared towards it.

Warning this session wasn't especially helpful for testing but I'll post it in a spoiler for those who are interested in the play by play. Also to note, my DM let me swap off a War Lance to a regular Lance for free to let me have better synergy with effects as I detailed above in the thread. Anyways, recap:

So the meaningful takeaways from this dumpster fire were that I didn't find a use for the Bangles Transcend ability. I was basically always looking to use it instead of using Shift Spark which felt really taxing; even if it would have denied me using my healing ability that round but it being limited to my aura is sorta rough (there was never an enemy in range for it). The Bangles AC saved at least one PC from being crit though, which was good but I don't recall it affecting the outcome of any other attacks save for one on the Ranger (caused a hit to miss that once). So felt so-so over all, I imagine it'll be better when the Worn Epithet comes on line but I can't speak to that now due to how poorly this all went.

There was some debate whether I could have jumped up onto the ship as the Monk did though. I believe I didn't have the economy or movement since at the top of initiative I has started with Bangles to give folks AC, so to get the bonuses from Leap The Falls from Body Ikon I lost the extra move needed to reposition. And since I had a 2 handed weapon I would have had to release a hand from gripping it to only maybe have had a chance to grab the edge of the ship (and my Reflex save seemed sorta poor in general even with Acumen). All in all, I feel going to the gangway was the right call even if it ended up super poorly but it wasn't something I really thought of at the time so remembering that it's an ability is important.

However I'm not sure if I'll get to play this character again (since they're captured and all) and already the party is talking about cutting their losses and leaving the PCs behind (The Exemplar was a relative stranger & the Alchemist who also ended up being caught was a fresh addition). If I do I'll give another update though!

Encountered this as well, definitely felt bad so I changed my weapon away from a Parry Weapon (War Lance to a Lance).

Also the class has reactive strike

This is a good point, ending with your spark in your weapon doesn't feel like a bad thing to me when you have reactive strike but obviously your mileage will vary depending on what you're trying to do.

I think they wanted to avoid exactly writing that. It would make a bad precedent.

I think you're right, but hey if there's anywhere where they're going to bend/break some rules it's probably on the Rare class. We already aren't getting level 1 feats on the martial character after all.

That said, probably would be too good and I don't expect them to actually fix it which is why I'm probably going to just change my weapon choice.

I do wonder if they could have simplified it by saying it provide a "+1 circumstance bonus or increases an existing circumstance bonus by 1 up to a max of +3" or if that kind of effect would just be unreasonable in pf2e.

As it stands, I'll be trying to use that one a bit more next in the next session to try it out. Might change my weapon though though assuming they won't be fixing that interaction.

I am fine with them being lighter on armor at least for the build I went for but that's because I think the healing loop with the Scars Body Ikon & Edge Weapon Ikon felt pretty fun and being a character who heals through their damage rather than straight avoiding it is a sorta unique playstyle in 2e and I'm not sure if it works if they get much better AC though.

For characters that aren't using those specific options, it didn't seem too hard to max out your AC by level 5 once you get your second boosts; I just seemed like you aren't able to do a STR build that dumps DEX completely which is fine to me. Sorta feels like how DEX builds still need some STR for their finesse weapon/armor options. A 14 Dex (About as much as STR I'm seeing in DEX Builds) at level 1 only puts you 1 AC behind your contemporaries and then you catch up at 5, and of course every +1 helps, but I don't think that's crippling.

That all said, I do feel like we'll see some sorta armored option at release I just don't know if we should see Heavy Armor.

I do think it's weird that your body Ikon can get Reactive Strike as a transcend ability but then you can get it all the time as a class feat at 6. I know there's a similar overlap with Diehard if you have the Scars Body Ikon and I'm not sure I like these kind of nonbos in general but feels worse for Gaze than Scars as this specifically shows up as a class feat.

Special: If you have Reactive Strike from another source, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to hit with Reactive Strike until your next turn

Also, allow Reactive Strike with ranged weapons within 15'.

I think I'd boost melee reactive strikes by +1/2 (Leaning +1 since that's still sorta big) if you have both.

As for Ranged Reactions, I think giving them reactive strikes with ranged weapons is already pretty powerful on it's own (snap shot is a lvl 6 feat for Rangers or 8/10/12 depending on your archetype) but giving them additional range atop that feels like it'd be all a bit much to me. I think I'd be cool with them just plain getting Snap Shot once they get reactive strike with the Gaze Ikon; that'd put them on par with Rangers then.

VitaminCee wrote:

QuidEst wrote:

No attack trait.

Did you just say that force open action doesn’t have the attack trait, while linking proof that it actually does have the attack trait? Absolute power move lol.

... I double-checked to make sure I wouldn't look like an idiot if it were right there. But it definitely is right there, so now I look like an idiot.

Hey, we all err from time to time. Gods knows my play group never lets me live something down when I'm wrong though!

I do still think we need something to clarify whether the Ikon can be broken or destroyed though.

So going to report on my play experiences with my first the Exemplar in this thread partly for discussion purposes but also to keep a record of my own experiences. To start, I did a Pathbuilder build with the custom pack made by Yasesril that I found on Reddit, so I thought it'd be good to link it for reference so folks could see what I picked:

Karuna

Character concept is part Disney princess (hence the singing) part demi-god and draws a good deal of inspiration from Karna from the Mahābhārata, save their brother killing them merely gave them their Body Ikon Scar.

This character joined an existing homebrew game with an ensemble cast of characters (Where PCs all have like 2-3 PCs that are part of a crew and folks rotate PCs around) and the PCs are largely level 7 but new character join at a level lower than the APL and this one was no exception. We play on Foundry so most everything was automated. Anyways the party went after a group of pirates who the crew had an existing beef with (they killed their old Monk) and the Exemplar. There were 6-ish enemies that were level 5 along with a crowd of jeering neutral-ish pirates who functioned like a Hazard (Routine seemed to be they could pushing people towards foes and either booed people when they rolled poorly or cheered them on when they rolled well as some sort of reaction). My Exemplar joined the fray and helped them fight the Pirates as soon as combat broke out, starting on the other side of the battle map than the other PCs. Not gonna describe every character in the scene but just the stuff directly related to the Exemplar.

Initiative - Put My Spark in my Weapon Ikon at the start of combat as part of initiative. Rolled a 19 and was middle of the pack in initiative. I think I may have started out with my Worn Ikon for the AC bonus since I rolled low-ish but idk for sure since positioning wise I wasn't near my allies.

Round 1- I drew my weapon, strode towards an enemy, then struck a nearby member of the pirates that I could put put off-guard/flank with our current Monk. This drew aggro from the pirate (they really didn't like persistent damage) and they attacked twice and hit me once, then stepped to make it harder for me to get flanking.

Round 2 - I stepped to get back into flanking, struck them, then used my Weapon Transcend ability to Drink of my Foes to recover some HP & switched over to my Body Ikon. The guy I hit still had his persistent damage from before and hit me again once but missed the second time & stepped to create room for his ally to flank. Another pirate saw said room and moved behind me, however this triggered my Reactive Strike and getting in a little extra damage. The flanker hit me again though.

Round 3 - I used my Transcend ability on my Body Ikon (No Scar But This) to heal up and thanks to Radiant Epithet I was able to help out the Monk with some passive healing, moved my Spark back over to my Weapon. I made a strike against the target I had been fighting already, rolled low but rerolled with my Hero Point to make it still hit. The Monk at this point stepped & flurried the guy who we had been working on for a while and downed him, triggering my Death Domain Reaction giving me some additional HP. The guy who had moved to flank me attacked (missed since we killed his flanker) but then ran off (no reaction to hit him since I already used Death's Call).

Round 4 - I delayed my turn because the Monk suggested he'd catch the guy who ran off, he chased him down and tossed him at my feet with a Whirlwind Throw after a flurry. I then attacked & crit them to finish them off, followed by another use of my Weapon Transcend ability to Drink of my Foes again after I killed them & switched things back over to my Body Ikon. Then Strode towards a remaining enemy in the encounter which ended up getting finished off at the end of the round.

All in all, I ended up with like 13-ish Temp HP and only 1 damage remaining (so nearly full HP). This was definitely an easier encounter, I think it was technically a Moderate encounter but felt like a Trivial with how the rolls worked (The Crowd Hazard affected the other PCs and not me due to rerolling my only bad roll and always fighting which made them "happy") but considering I was below the APL it probably was less so.

My first impression was the that economy was loop was very good and tactical, though a shorter encounter I felt like my choices of what I put my Spark into mattered a great deal even if the loop would have been similar (Like I missed my extra weapon Ikon damage the turn I too my Reactive Strike). My abilities felt powerful though and though I think I was hit my fair share of times (the monk got attacked about 2 times as often and was hit about half as many as well) my HP total at the end showed how powerful the mitigation was even if it was self-healing. Also having 2, good/versatile reactions was nice.

My Palisade Bangles felt sorta useless but perhaps if the positioning was better I could have started out with them. However after re-reading things I think that the Palisade Bangles Immanence doesn't work with Parry (Both Circumstance Bonuses) and the AoO/Reactive Strike would be better with Reach so I realized I would be better off with a regular Lance over a War Lance. Not sure if that's a bug, a feature, or just poor planning on my part and maybe should consider a different Ikon or give this one another chance. They don't necessarily fit into the combat loop but maybe the forced movement will be more appetizing in the next combat.

I plan on only playing another 1-2 sessions with this character since they were made for the playtest. I didn't get a chance to use Only The Worthy yet (it is sorta niche) but I'll keep an eye out for it too.

Force Open doesn't take MAP, so it can be tried repeatedly.

Pretty sure it has the attack trait and would be subject to it yeah?

A success breaks the object (or at least damages it), so there should probably be some clarifying text that it flies back to you undamaged.

In terms of RAW, I'd agree it some clarification. Force Open doesn't even really make sense here since it's not a "a door, window, container or heavy gate either" nor a wall and I certainly wouldn't apply a penalty for them not using a crowbar. I think it's only called out here to piggyback on an existing action that has the attack trait. RAI, I think that it doesn't grok as you're breaking it; since you're more forcing it to move as opposed to breaking a physical mechanism so once it is broken it should return automatically when broken as it says.

As an aside, though I do wonder if it might be easier for some foes to just damage/destroy the item instead since it's unattended it can be attacked. Especially for a worn Ikon that seems not favorable. Wonder if they might need to address that in some way.

Neat :D

Okay, that's what I thought. Thanks for confirming!

So expecting to have my Dhampir go up against a Shadow Collector relatively soon (I made the check to identify them at the end of the session, ended as a cliff hanger before we fight/talk to them) and wondering how people will rule these abilities will interact:

Resist Level Drain (Ex): A dhampir takes no penalties from energy drain effects, though he can still be killed if he accrues more negative levels then he has Hit Dice. After 24 hours, any negative levels a dhampir takes are removed without the need for an additional saving throw.

Steal Shadow (Su) A shadow collector automatically steals the shadow of any incorporeal or living creature destroyed, incapacitated, or killed by its claw attack. A shadow collector can also steal a living corporeal creature’s shadow with the steal combat maneuver; the shadow doesn’t count as fastened to its owner. Until the shadow is returned, the victim has no shadow or reflection and gains 2 permanent negative levels. These negative levels can’t be removed otherwise, even with magic that usually removes negative levels. When a shadow collector steals a shadow, it gains 2 shadow points. A shadow collector must expend 1 shadow point to use any of its spell-like abilities. A shadow collector generally begins an encounter with 1d3+1 shadow points. A shadow collector can release a stolen shadow as a standard action. A creature can touch the shadow collector to regain its stolen shadow, as long as the shadow collector is helpless or dead. A successful break enchantment (DC 23) can also restore a target’s shadow.

I am assuming that I'll be able to ignore the penalties from the negative levels indefinitely (That seems like a given), but I'm doubting they'll go away due to the fact negative levels can't be removed clause on the Collector's ability. However the fact that the Resist Level Drain ability isn't a magical effect(it's an EX) gives me pause since it explicitly mentions magical effects. What do people think?

Sorry to practice a little thread necromancy, but I figure this might be better than starting a new thread for the exact same issue. Has any recent FAQ, Errata, etc changed the RAW on this?

I'm not the DM in our group but trying to get to the bottom of the situation RAW, but from the above comments seems the RAW is to have to Ready an action to attack then jump? Because if you don't do that (and don't have one of these feats to let you not have to ready) then when you jump to a square adjacent to an enemy above you you start falling if you don't have footing, and you can't take another action until you've finished falling as a consequence of your movement. Does that sum up things correctly? If so, where can I point a player to the rule that falling would happen before they can take their action to attack?

Yes, that's already covered by "stacking from different sources". It's like getting temp hp from hitting someone (who happens to be shaken) and then also getting temp hp because you hit them with a cruel weapon. Multiple triggers from the same event are different sources.

Ah, okay. Sorry then! Good to know, thank you.

Temporary hitpoints from different sources stack, but you can't hit someone with two purify body's to gain double the temp HP.

Not casting two Purify's for this interaction, that's not what I'm asking here.

To better get at what I'm trying to get clarification on an example: a theoretical ally got what is for all intents and purposes a paper cut(1 HP Damage). I cast Purify Body and heal them for 25, 24 of which would be excess healing. Would I get for the next 10 rounds 24 Temp HP from my Spirit Boost & also get the 12 Temp HP From Purify Body for the next hour?

Alternatively, if they don't stack, would I have to choose between those two modes? Or is there a rule where I'd have to choose the one that's bigger? The 12 though has the much longer duration though so it would be a waste.

Whenever your healing spells heal a target up to its maximum hit points, any excess points persist for 1 round per level as temporary hit points (up to a maximum number of temporary hit points equal to your oracle level).

You restore a number of hit points to the creature equal to 3d8 + 1 per caster level (maximum +20). If the healing would cause the target to exceed its maximum hit points, the target immediately gains half the excess healing from this spell as temporary hit points that last for 1 hour. These temporary hit points are lost first when the target takes damage (although some temporary hit points are lost even before these temporary hit points, such as the temporary hit points from the shell of succor oracle mystery or the shell of succor hex granted by the restoration spirit specialization).

Planning out some spells for my next level as an Oracle and was curious at the interaction for the above text... Would they stack? Normally my gut would say no, since it's the same spell causing the effect, but it's two different sources generating it (One being the spell, the other being the revelation). Thoughts? May only matter for the few rounds the Temp HP From Spirit Boost would linger, but may save a PC's life sometime so figure it's worth getting consensus on.

Definitely the right move, very pleased with this decision. :D

So I was starting up a new 1e Pathfinder game with myself as a player, and I referenced the SRD and saw that Dhampirs had a starting age equivalent to Humans. I thought that a bit strange as when I ran a game I recalled them being a long lived race, but it's been a few years so I chalked it up to an error on my part... However after doing some digging into something else I saw they had errat'd the ARG to change them and other races as well. That's fine, I guess but then while looking into it I saw that in 2e they changed back!

Despite being living creatures, dhampirs respond to positive and negative energy as if they were undead, making them unwelcome in many holy communities and often driving them toward necromantic arts. Dhampirs aren't immortal, but age far more slowly than most mortals, with a lifespan similar to that of an elf. Dhampirs have difficulty producing children of their own, and those few born to a dhampir are never dhampirs themselves.

With conflicting rules and errata I figure this isn't a rules question as much as asking people's opinion, but what do people decide Dhampir's lifespans should be these days? Go with the newest source(2e) and the original ruling for their lifespans or go with the last 1E errata? Or does it just vary depending on parentage or some other metric? Let me know what you think.

In fact, there isn't even one Magus Archetype from 1st ed that encourages or benefits Finesse playstyle so I tend to think that this is simply a mental artifact of the overpowered nature of Finesse and Dex in general in 3.X games to the point where even Classes that are not supposed to lean into that flavor still chose to because it was mechanically incentivized.

Um, have you seen the Kensai archetype? They were light/unarmored to get their Canny Defense and at that point you had a higher Max Dex on your armor so being a Finesse build was pretty much recommended for that archetype. Even without the Kensai, considering their use of Armor type scales and most games were held at lower levels, Dervish Dance offered accessibility to extra AC at early levels. Also, the iconic Magus using a Scimitar along with the accessibility of the Dervish Dancing feat(and later slashing grace for other options), made Dex based Magi a staple in PFS play for a long while. You could still make a STR build, and a lot of people did, but it's disingenuous to say that Finesse builds weren't popular with the class.

Now, does every class need to allow for that kind specialization? No, but I think there is a case for the Magus to get an archetype for one at least.

I forget which spellcasting class had this as an option(might have been arcanist in PF1 but not sure) but I'd like to see the 4-spell slots have the option to be paired down. Namely, take your 9th level slot and prep multiple spells in that slot up to the levels of spells that the slot allowed.

Thus you could break it up into 9 level 1 slots, or 2 4's and 1 or whatever you needed as long as it didn't exceed the level of spells that the original slot possessed.

I think this is something that people who are suggestion Staffs could already get behind since they are already suggesting burning spells to recharge staves, might as well kill a higher level spell slot for some utility when able.

This upcoming weekend I'm looking to do an actual play test for the new classes and I would like to run though some official modules since my homebrews usually are pretty curtailed to my own groups and thus are less valuable to testing imo. So anyone have any recommendations?

Ideally I'd like a path with a lot of enemy types and a campaign that covers a wide array of levels so I can sample the new classes at a few different levels. Failing finding a path that does both though, I'd pick up PDFs for a couple few but I'd prefer one package if possible. Basically I'd want the old RoRL which ranged from low levels up to high, but I'd like to stick to something official for testing right now rather than mess around with any conversions of old paths(for right now anyways).

Anyways, thank you for any recommendations in advance!

With how I read it feels like the spell should be one degree better if the strike hits not if the strike crits

I wonder if that would be too powerful or balanced

I think it's a cool idea for what it's worth, definitely another option imo.

Also, the only reasons i can see to not give Magi “legendary for spell attacks” are (1) even though every class has been worded to handle spell attack and DC proficiencies separately, they’ve always been the same and (2) they specifically want Magi to be particularly bad with this generally low performing category of spells.

I see those as bad reasons.

I think they wanted to keep the 1E feel of "2/3's caster & Not full BAB", so they only get to master but not legendary on either of those(unless I'm missing something).

I do think there have been a few suggestions that would help, getting Item Bonuses was suggested by Alchemic_Genius, but Seisho's improving degree better if the strike hits would also work since the actual spell attack value would be less important then.

It makes me wonder if there's some reason they dont make striking spell work similar to eldritch archer, where the spell attack uses the same result as the weapon strike, or at the very least, allow the spell attack to use thw weapons item bonus for attack rolls.

That's a thing?! Seems like that'd be an easy, potential fix for the Magus.

Darth Grall wrote:

-"A Magus was (almost) always 'on'"

If you never played a PF1 Magus(I still think most of PF2 players come from PF1 but in case you didn't) the Magus had a great deal of staying power despite their reputation as Nova-ing Crit-Fishers. They got a good chunk of spells, got extra spells from having a high INT, which meant more arcane pool...

This was also one of my initial reactions making it seem like the 2e Magus will play something like the 1e Bloodrager where you have to be very careful about your use of spells because you get so few per day..

Having seen a few Bloodragers in action, I totally agree that's what it more feels like. Within my own playgroup there are a few people who've drawn the comparison to 5e Warlocks but a fundamental difference is that they can short rest to recover spells which a Magus can't do. Either way, I think the Magus is closer mechanically to either of those than the original magus.

Looking the package over again, I sorta think it would have been better suited without the Magus branding and called it something else, just like how there aren't Paladins and just Champions now. I think I would have been sold better on this as a spiritual successor rather than a conversion of the Magus as a class. But we'll see how much feedback they take on this and what happens.

For me there are 3 (somewhat esoteric & cyclical) pillars to the Magus:

-"Blends Martial Combat with Spellcasting Seemlessly"

In 3.5 & PF1 casting & fighting was clunky and most of the core classes weren't good at it, leaving it in the realm a prestige class to even try to blend together full BAB & any casting progression. The Magus did that out the gate and satisfied it in a way better than any previous attempts had(Looking at you Duskblade).

PF2's Magus has a hard time doing that because the 3 action system of PF2 is just so much more flexible and thus is more casting friendly than it was before. I'd say that the current offerings are... flawed but not without some good elements to build upon.

Someone else said that Striking Spell more closely resembles Spellcombat from PF1 and I think that's correct. I also have seen people say that the PF2 Magus "Feels like a class that is trying to full attack in a game that doesn't do that anymore" and I think that's true too. So a problem is that it's not doing it in a way that is seemless for the system.

-"A Magus was (almost) always 'on'"

If you never played a PF1 Magus(I still think most of PF2 players come from PF1 but in case you didn't) the Magus had a great deal of staying power despite their reputation as Nova-ing Crit-Fishers. They got a good chunk of spells, got extra spells from having a high INT, which meant more arcane pool, which also meant more spells via spell recall, and being limited to 2/3's casting meant that pearls of power for your highest level spells were cheaper than the Wizards at mid to higher levels. And even when they finally ran out of spells completely, they could still cast the Arcane Mark Cantrip and with their enhanced weapon(which if they weren't a Black-Blade user, they likely used the last point from their Pool to enhance it) to ride out the remaining combat. My point was that they always felt like they were a Magus. I think one of the concerns I have is that I'm not sure 4 spells is enough and that Cantrips aren't good enough to let them feel like they're still "on". They rarely felt like a sub-optimal fighter or wizard at any point. That one though will totally be subject to each campaign though and largely depend on if encounter design is being framed around the dreaded "15-minute adventuring day" or more closely resemble a traditional dungeon crawl. I'm not sure if 4 spells + cantrips a day will cut it but hey, we'll see.

-"A One-Stop-Shop For your Gish Needs."

By this I don't mean, it's the best at everything, even in PF1 they were still 3/4s BAB And 2/3's Casters. I mean that the suite of abilities the class had were strong enough at both casting and martial abilites that you didn't *need* to multi-class or supplement your features with others. One of the most disheartening things currently is that it seems that other packages(Fighters w/ Wizard Archetype Feats) seem better than the PF2 Magus on paper or that the Magus *needs* to take wizard specialization to get more spells.

The Magus was the Gish class to play in PF1 out the box without more toys, we want it to be so here as well. It was NOT the best at any of those but it was strong enough that it never felt like it was behind.

-----

And these things are definitely cyclical right? Like seamlessly blending spellcasting & combat in addition to always having your features online makes it less likely you'll turn elsewhere for supplemental class features for instance. But just my two copper on this which I'm glad to type out.

It has been said before in other threads but I'd like to go in a different direction, a more narrative one.

Pathfinder and tabletop rpgs in general are also narrative experiences, where you picture the action in your mind as you play.

As it is, Striking Spell seems misnamed to me, let me explain with examples.

Enoriel, the Magus, uses Striking Spell to place a Produce Flame in his rapier.
Since he has the Sliding Synthesis, he steps up to the ennemy orc and Strikes.
It's a success ! (Yay) Now he rolls for Produce Flame to hit... a failure !
So narratively, how does it happen ? How does the spell inside the weapon that just hit the creature misses them ? For some spells I can imagine, like Telekynetic Projectile that could fling some debris from the ground where you scratched your weapon as you swung.

But now if we narrate is as Spell Combat.

Enoriel, the Magus, uses Spell Combat to precast his Produce Flame out of the orc's range, he stores the energy within himself and steps in thanks to his Synthesis.
He now lunges his rapier and hits ! Quickly he lets the energy he was holding back flow to his palm and reaches for the orc's face, but he turns at the last second and the fire goes crashing on a nearby wall !

Now, if Enoriel crits.

Enoriel, the Magus, uses Spell Combat to precast his Produce Flame out of the orc's range, he stores the energy within himself and steps in thanks to his Synthesis.
He now lunges his rapier and critically hits ! The ennemy's guard is open and he reaches for his face in that short opportunity, engulfing the orc in flames !

You get the gist of it. It just feels weird narratively that a weapon charged with a spell can touch but miss the spell. For saving throws, it makes sense. The target will still attempt to resist the creeping cold of Vampiric Touch or mind numbing sensation of Hallucination.
But why would a Striking Spell have a chance to miss the spell on a weapon hit, and not a Spell Storing Weapon ? The principle is the same, isn't it ?

I'd be...

... Huh. Well I totally agree, it'd be better suited as spell combat than spell strike, despite it's current name and the fact that you literally hit with your spell through your weapon.

The issue is that we already can do that in game as is, currently, just cast a spell and take an attack, assuming we have the actions for it, albiet with a MAP and without the Slide from his synthesis. Still an interesting take away though.

Darth Grall wrote:

I don't play 5e but a buddy of mine said this is almost exactly how 5e spell casting works for Warlocks, but a fundamental difference is that characters in PF2E don't recover spell slots from a short rest and barring the Magus getting a spell recall feat or class feature that lets you convert focus points back into spells I think I'm pretty bummed about this kind of limited casting.

Or am I missing something?

Yeah, the 5E Warlock has a very limited number of spells and regains them on a short rest. He also only goes up to 5th level and can only get very specific spells at higher spell levels by picking them via his Invocations (which are basically class feats in PF2 terms).

What you're missing is mostly action economy and the whole action system differences between the two games. It's nearly impossible for a 5E warlock to cast a powerful spell and attack in the same turn.

At least that's what I remember from my very limited experience with 5E. Other players will probably correct me :)

I know it's not apples to apples here, but an interesting comparison since I can't help but feel some echoes of influence here. And if that's true, I hope that it's recognized that part of the reason that this method of spell progression works is that they can recover spells to some degree in 5e.

And TBH I'm not sure if you're right. Most of my 5e experience comes from listening to live play shows like CR or Dimension 20, but I thought they can attack then cast any bonus action spells like Hex or vice versa if they can attack as a bonus action, but I understand everyone's multiclassing in 5E so I'm not sure if it's the Warlock shell itself or multi-classing that's in play there. But yes, the action economy of PF2 is very different but I don't think it's so different. Either way though, I'm not knocking Striking Spell here(because I think it's well enough and I like the 3 action system), just examining the spell progression.