Debelinho's page

Because one interpretation breaks balance in a way the system set itself out to purge and the other doesn't. Autonomous creatures breaking action economy was the sole reason why summons and the Summoner class is nerfed in this edition.

No it doesn't. All of us still participating in this discussion play them RAW during initiative. And vast majority agrees that any kind of complex tasks require constant command and supervision even during exploration mode, but for flying familiar to not be able to fly straight up 1200ft and look around and then report back is an extremely limiting interpretation by any standard.

What do you say to a player that picked flight and speech as a GM?
"Congrats, you just played yourself, your familiar can speak, but it doesn't have mental stats, so all you hear is mrrghhhbrghhrrr, or it can repeat what you order it to say, so you should have made it into a backpack battery"

I find this hard to believe when 3.5 (and PF1!) is in the picture, the game for which there is a specified DC in the rules for balancing on a 50 degree, wet slope in rough water that is 11 inches wide vs 13 inches.

Objectively, PF2 has more GM fiat than that.

yeah, it has that, but also convoluted, non streamlined, unclear rules on many key points, gaping unbalances, and many other shortcomings, which is why we have PF2 now, and it's much better in those regards than previous editions. Objectively.

but we digress

Arguments

The thing is, you frame your arguments by RAW and disprove anything out of it to the point of absurdity

We all agree that the rules for minions out of encounter mode are vague and unclear, but for you that means they are nonexistant and it should fall back to encounter rules for every and all it's interactions with the world.

That narrow view only leads to even more absurdity and even more "gamey" situations where it feels we're playing a computer RPG.

Do you really need to command it at all times with a powerful voice every 6 seconds, whole day, every day if you want it to follow along?
What happens if you get separated for more than a minute, out of sight/hearing range? does it act on it's animal instincts and just goes away to live in the wild?
Can you technically order your minion to death by not ordering it to drink or eat and not giving it a minute to let it's instincts kick in?

Do you also read other encounter rules literally like minions and transfer it to other modes of play?

where do you draw the line of absurdity?
As a GM what would you say to a player who wants her talking bird familiar to fly over distant(2000ft) castle ruins and report back what it saw?

OK, so if familiars only do what you want from them when you command them, what would happen in your game if master and familiar got separated? like out of sight/sound range....is that game over for your relationship unless you stumble upon them again? they just go off and become an animal acting on their instinct, and that's that? What if it continues to live it's life instinctively as an animal and doesn't die? can you even get a new one then?

since command has an auditory trait, what would be the range for it? can you issue a command to a familiar 2000ft away flying above enemy castle?

what does an auditory command even mean if the familiar doesn't speak or understand a language? Can you emote commands to it as vaguely described in your 1 mile range communication thingy? Could you use a signal whistle to issue commands(half a mile range across open terrain)?
Could you use message cantrip to "whisper" commands to it?

how does a speaking familiar act in social encounters? do you have to issue commands to it so it continues to speak every few seconds? or does it stops mid sentence every round unless you yell at it in a powerful voice(auditory)? It says it can attempt trained skill actions if it has your key stat added to it's skill. What happens if you command it to do a 10min activity(like identify an item)? or send it to gather info with diplomacy? do you really have to yell at it to lie before it attempts it's deception check?

it's impossible to write rules as detailed as some of you guys want it and still make sense in all modes of play. GM fiat is present in all games to a degree...extended rules with monthly errata would quickly grow to an immense size and discourage any new players to even give this game a chance...

Norade, I made this thread with the intent of getting people's thoughts and opinions on how familiars should be run. You've made your stance abundantly clear again and again, to the point that it now borders on bullying others that disagree with you. I will kindly ask you to refrain as that behavior is antithetical to the purpose of this thread.

You've made your case, and it's a strong one. Please allow others to attempt to make there's.

I don't even think it's a strong one. Rules for encounters, exploration and downtime differ from one another in many ways. Spacing and size comes to mind first....we're not cubes of flesh 5ft on all sides, right? Or are we?

For example, during encounters, if your character has 25 speed and tries to move through a hallway 80ft long, 5ft wide and occupied fully by your ally NPCs, there is no RAW way to walk through that hallway normally.

There are numerous examples of silliness like this in RAW interpretations, minions are no exception. They are written the way they are for balance purposes in encounter mode of the game.

arguing familiars are no more than that in reality and all modes of play is like arguing that it's impossible to fit 2 conscious medium persons in a 5ft square, but you can fit infinite number of dead or unconscious persons in that same space bc RAW works like that

Bards are better than wizards at everything

yeah, def better for buffs and debuffs, but better at everything?

Arcane is the only list that can consistently attack various defenses of monsters(AC, FORT, REF, WILL) with best spells for each defense.

Occult can't attack reflex almost at all...and AC mostly with 1 short range cantrip.

they suck at blasting until level 11(calamity) and it's still lowest damage blast compared to other of it's level

Investigator Eldritch archer

Stratagem + eldritch shot vs bosses that are mostly the subject of your investigation
or enchanted arrows as a 2 action attack when stratagem costs you an action
If all fails cast an electric arc or use battle medicine or some other stuff

never waste a turn in your life

of course that wizard has more than one option, but OP was kinda aiming at dealing damage, and this is the best wizard can do and is also the most precise spell attack in the whole game... Keep in mind that your weapon special features also apply...there is a unique item in AoA that we got. It blinds for 1 round on critical hit(no save). I was seriously thinking of transforming it into a bastard sword via shifting rune and using it as my HotA. I'm sure there is more of that kind of stuff around...

My character is a human universalist wizard that took 2x weapon prof general feat from 1st lvl and knows how to use all martial weapons.

He uses Hand of the Apprentice to throw his greatsword 500ft as 1 action in addition to casting a 2 action non attackroll blast spell, or uses a true strike + HotA

He's 10th level currently and has a +2 striking, wounding, flaming greatsword that he can throw max 4 times in a single fight(2 focus points and 2 abilities to regenerate them 1/day) and has bespell for extra d6

2d12+2d6+5+1d6 persistent bleed(d12bleed+d10 persfire+ flatfooted on crit)

against boss opponents i usually use sudden bolt + HotA and i wait for a fear+flatfooted debuff from my party before i go all in

7d12 sudden bolt 5lvl + HotA does amazing dmg to a single opponent at this point for me

I also use phantasmal killer alot on all beasty monsters that usually have bad will saves(extra fear debuff let's me hit it better w HotA after)

In addition I also have rogue dedication and I'm the party rogue and crafter with maxed thievery and crafting...playing Age of Ashes

EDIT - I find HotA a better alternative to Elemental toss bc it let's you add item bonus to spell attack...the only thing in the game that does AFAIK

So you complain about scoundrel rogue being weak in damage compared to all other rogues or martials...and everyone says you are right. They also point out that scoundrels also has some strong points and viable builds, which you don't really appreciate since you already started with 18cha as a rogue...that privilege then made you say something stupid like: all rogues are thief racket.

When people try and explain their "scoundrel+caster archer build", you just argue that your new and improved thief rogue can deal 0.5 dmg more per round, or something along those lines...all that after you wrote in OP that you wanted a more noncombat, social encounter guy...

No, Scoundrel rogue is not utter crap, esp not in normal ABC PC creation games.It was more you making terrible choices considering your party composition(and starting scores) that made your character arguably weaker than other party members...

I gave my players wand of potency +1, which gives +1 on spell attacks only, few sessions back. Sorc has it now...but still uses only cantrip attack spells....none of his slot spells have a spell attack roll...

I don't think it will affect my game in any significant way even later when they get the wand to +2 or +3

AC limit mechanics for animal companions is there so that the companion can never outshine a PC.

most of us remember companions in PF1, where at some levels they outperformed everyone else in the party....which is lame AF

an animal companion should never be able to consistently have AC better or even on par with a fighter in full plate IMO....and i think the math is set exactly to enforce this

Did anyone mention manual dexterity?

having your familiar administer potions to fallen allies, or stabilize them, or taking a potion and administer it to you for 1 action is pretty cool. also, it can open door, fetch small items...

familiar dying will also be not so common...sure you can waste actions trying to kill it(in stead of killing something that can actually hurt you), but even if you drop it to 0, it follows dying PC rules, so it's dead only on dying 4. I can't imagine even the most evil GMs ground and pounding a poor dead bird on the floor for 2 rounds after it stopped moving...

and even when that happens, you can get one back after a week, which sucks, but won't kill you

wizards are not weak or weaker than other classes in PF2. They got nerfed compared to PF1 wizards for sure, but I don't think anyone should have a real problem with that right? The only problem you could have is that they got nerfed "too much".

I personally don't think that's the case, because all wizards that I've played or GM-ed so far were literally glass cannons, except they weren't so glassy anymore. Dmg was almost on par with party's main two-h fighter, but the wizard was constantly in the back, away from immediate danger, while the fighter was going down much more frequently.

yes, cantrips cost 2 actions, but you don't have to move mostly to fire them off, and if you combine non attack cantrips(electric arc) + strike w ranged weapon(like an elven wizard w shortbow/longbow) or your hand of the apprentice, you get 2 attacks at your highest bonus...starting immediately from 1st level.

one of my players is currently playing an ancient elf universalist wizard w rouge dedication and elven weapon training(currently lvl 5)...party's best striker for sure.

Also, we already finished a campaign at lvl 17 using PF2 rules(started w playtest then switched at 10th lvl in last august) and we didn't have wizards in the party, but we had 2 sorcerers. One of them was blaster sorc and boy did he blast...OK, 2 martials in the party weren't just bystanders at that level like in PF1, but they were hardly doing bigger dmg than the blaster.

Looking at the bard I can't help to think that whoever is playing this bard that they base their opinion on is doing a bad job...

Some examples of things you will not ever get from multiclass (unless we make a significant mistake):

*Ranger's Hunter's Edge benefits
*Fighter's legendary weapon proficiency
*Barbarian's instinct specialization increased damage
*Monk or champion's legendary armor proficiency
*Rogue's full sneak attack advancement

All of these things either give you legendary in attacks or AC, or they give you a bunch of bonus damage or something that works out to a choice of accuracy, damage, or AC like Hunter's Edge, which work out to a decent balance between the classes. If you give out Hunter's Edge, say, fighter/barbarian/etc multiclass ranger is just vastly better than ranger, or pure fighter/barbarian/etc for that matter. Grabbing two of these via multiclass would just be a dominant option compared to not. Look for a bit more insight on this in the dual-classing rules in the GMG; doubling up on two of these sorts of options are one of the few things you have to really account for or figure out as a GM even in that system. Wizard/cleric? Tons of options, tons of staying power, huge flexibility, but your wizard and cleric abilities are each within the range a single-classed character could be. But double down on math boosts that combine faster than linearly and you have created a much more powerful character in one aspect, often offense, than could ever exist with one class.

only one thing bothers me regarding MC dedications....Rouge gives light armor prof, while fighter does nothing for that matter...considering fighter is the only one besides champion that even has all armors, that feels weird. If rouge ded was too weak without it, you could have given it a single skill increase instead....but more to the point, fighter should have had a choice between shield block or armor proficiency in it's dedication in addition.

Currently, martials can't benefit from fighter dedication whatsoever(just 1 skill)...while fighters can from other martial dedications

Debelinho wrote:

imo spellstrike should work only with attack trait spells

I do think my idea for Spellstrike needs balance tweaking.. but why not let it work for other touch spells? Its normally delivered by touch, but delivered by weapon instead. And since pf2 doesn't have holding a charge, it's actually a higher risk. So if the player is willing to give up the free auto touch for a Spellstrike opportunity, just adds choice.

all offensive touchspells have the attack trait

almost like they are preparing for something...

cool work, honestly

point blank already exists...1st level fighter feat...paladin can take it in 4th level earliest

If stunning first is that amazing, is slow fall really in the same league? Seems like a dud feat to me compared to what you could take.

I've already seen few posts that address slow fall and similar monk "skill feats"...and I agree to a degree...monks need those options, but they could have made it stronger or better scaling

looking just for combat those kind of feats almost never make sense....but that's me....IMO you should save your class feats for combat options, and use the rest to flesh out other details of your build...

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the student of perfection dedication is very nearly strictly better than the ki strike feat, since it's Ki Strike + a skill increase and a lore.

Only downside is that it locks you out of other dedications, and that it's a level 2 feat instead of a level 1 feat. Of course, I've seen a lot of monks take a stance with their level 1 feat and a ki power with the level 2 feat.

Hmm... it’s concerning they’re already producing “this feat is like this existing one but better”. If the other feats in the archetype are as good as everyone is saying, having to take 2 of them isn’t really a penalty.

The only other balancing factor is that the dedication is level 2 vs level 1. If we look at the existing level 2 feats:
* Brawling Focus: Nice. But you first have to crit and then they have to fail a save. Not sure how often that is going to come up.
* Crushing Grab: Strength mod damage on a grapple check isn’t bad. But lots of people don’t typically plan to do grapple checks in most rounds, and if you can deal damage with a fighter’s combat grab (it isn’t clear to me that you can) then the fighter seems better.
* Dancing Leaf: Slowfall doesn’t exactly get too many people excited. Very situational.
* Stunning Fist: Only works on mooks and lesser bosses. At least they’re more likely to fail the save.

Given all the above I can see the student of Perfection dedication being a no brainer for at least a while. Which is concerning that we are already getting options like that already,

What are other people’s thoughts?

stunning fist is by far the best 2nd level martial feat...no action cost and u get a huge benefit(that doesn't work so well against solo bosses, like any "save" spell...so works only on 90% of monster well)....you even have 2 shots at connecting it...put that as a 2nd level feat in any martial class, and all power gamers would take it, even as a single attack(without flurry)

IMO stunning fist is the strongest 2nd level choice compared to other choices for any class printed so far. no brainer really(except some niche flavor builds)

if monk needed that to make a balanced character, they should have made it as a class feature...

and again.....magic warrior sucks :)

Ranger spellcasting from 1st edition is very limited

all together they get 3rd level druid and 2nd level arcane spells(max at 17lvl)

you can literally make the same ranger(regarding abilities and spells) in PF2....the only thing hard to replicate is that random list of monster that 1st ed ranger have dmg bonus against....but precision edge bonus can replace that...

PF2 is so modular in character creation that you can really make any kind of fictional character very easily(aragorn too, although he never casts any real spells)

now...changing one's preference later in life(i doubt that you are a youngster mentioning 1st edition) and accepting change....that is a bit harder than making any kind of character in any system.

magic warrior...just...just no

druid dedication + wild shape is so much better....and anybody can get wis 14 compared to focus spell prereq of magic warrior and it scales better(+2 status to attack)

those anti divination bonuses are silly....c'mon guys, those spells are story spells for GM....if they need to be there, they'll be there.

if your character is resistant, your other party member wont be...so whatever...the BBEG will get his intel one way or the other...

runescarred works better than multiclass caster in some cases...
2 major advantages mechanically speaking:
no score prerequisites....you don't need int or cha 14 to get arcane spells
advanced spellcasting is level 10 instead of 12...if you really need that 12 lvl slot for your build

Aldori seems cool for human rogues or dex fighters(they get riposte at level 6)...maybe some dex champion build?

red mantis is perfect for flurry human rangers, or human rogues...or even dual wielding fighters but those RP requirements ban them for most PCs

Living monolith looks useful mechanically....I can imagine it with a dwarven monk...or any martial dwarf, but again....RP stuff is getting in the way...damn sphinx and egypt :)

Lastwall seems OK for any non figher that is planning to use a shield...or for anyone in an undead heavy camapaign

Hellknight is also cool...i can see some benefits there for lot's of tanks

student of perfection looks very usable by monks

lion and pathfinder are both...very campaign dependent

magic warrior...very disappointing...almost nonplayable...

well...at least a human doesn't have to be raised by gnomes...
just knew one at some point :)

doesn't 2e basically have a built in autocorrect for "character building challenged" players? Why would anybody deliberately downplay on their class strenght's? If you are a fighter with str 14, you better have dex at least 16 and use a finesse weapon...or you pick another class FFS...

In 1e you had to be really savvy with the rules or get help from someone who is to make a fully functioning character(by everyone's standard)

In 2e you have to deliberately play against that autocorrect....so you must make an effort to be sub optimal.

it's like playing a team sport where 2 of my guys are playing dumb, making it harder for all of us and calling it fun.

I'm a GM that never rolls behind screen and fudge rolls...and i always help "rules light" players to make their character viable in combat and still keep ALL their RP wishes and flair.

I'm sure that I can turn ANY character concept that you can think of into a viable character in 2E(again, by everyone's standard)...hit me with anything...

goblin champion with wolf companion(they can take wolves as mounts)

it stacks pretty well with your champion reaction so you can provoke with him, flank and protect him...heal him...

Debelinho wrote:

if I attack someone once and then use remaining 2 actions to ready a strike again when my ally goes into flank, do i have normal MAP on that attack....or just -2 like with reactions?

Reactions like AoO don't have -2 anymore.

You have no penalty.

so, essentially you can mitigate MAP with that option...instead of attacking -0/-5/-10, you can attack twice with -0 both....

interesting....

EDIT - didn't see Rysky's comment....so you do get MAP...ok, no s~~*shuffling with ready actions....that's better

well then go with caster and MC to martial and then take that archetype. do it with a gish and it will add that blend that you need...

just don't expect a class that has martial profs and full caster progression...that's just a slap to everything else

I'm a Gish lover since..since 2nd edition elven fighter/mages in elven chain and i loved playing magus, but i don't see any point of magus becoming his own full class.
It doesn't seem likely that they will introduce any kind of hybrid classes...half casters with their own customized lists will not be introduced any time soon IMO. MC works for that just fine either way(IMO caster/martial is better for archer and martial/caster for melee). In PF1 magus was caped at 6th level...with MC you get 8th lvl.---and with new action economy arcane archers don't need anything to be very powerful builds, but for melee i think we will see something soon...Archetype or a feat(like rouge's sneak attack w magic) that does something to compliment a melee build....doesn't need to be spellstrike, although I wouldn't mind :)

Is that possible to have a sword and shield ranger or a blaster cleric with holy magic?

And as a more generic question if these ones are too specific: can a chracter, or even the rogue, have DEX to dammage in close combat, like with starknife or dagger or things like that?

yes, yes and yes :)

you can use wpn and shield as two wpn fighting(if you put shield spikes on your shield), and still use a raise shield action to defend yourself.

blaster cleric is possible, but i don't think you have a very big choice of blasting spells from cleric list in first few levels....druid list(primal) on the other hand is made for blasting :)

you can pick a rouge technique at 1st lvl which gives you dex to dmg with finesse wpns

Bardic Dave wrote:

ikarinokami wrote:

masda_gib wrote:

I would also say Antimagic Field is the rare spell. But only because I'm sure I read that info/speculation somewhere here or in a blog or on reddit already... but I can't remember where.

You are correct. it's odd to me, that wish is not even uncommon.

That seems odd to me too! Are 10th level spells still unlocked via a Feat, or do you just get 'em now?

Just get them. In the glances I've made into spellcasters, at least on Cleric and Sorcerer, you get one 10th level slot at 19th level, and the only way to get another is with your 20th level feat. Sorcerer gets two 10th level spells to choose from.

wish is a well known spell....a superstar of spells....every young arcane caster dreams of one day casting that spell.

that is why it's not uncommon