Decimus Drake's page

I's either play a different campaign or find a different player.

I'm running AV with three players using free archetypes and a level boost, it seems to be working.

I wouldn't give it to some and not others. Let the min maxers min max and the rpers rp. Let everyone have some fun rather than force things on them. It might not be your intention to punish some players, but that what it is at the end of the day.

I just let everyone have whatever they want, though I did make suggestions. We have an oracle with blessed one, an investigator with ghost hunter and a fighter with marshal. I also tweaked the ghost hunter/inherent spells rule so they now work of the characters highest mental stat instead of just charisma. Personally I think the rules in PF2 are robust enough that min maxing doesn't get problematic the way it could in PF1. Also when it comes to encounters, the action economy plays the bigger part than having a free archetype.

A good approach could be to select archetypes for each player based on what you think the player would like, that works well with the character and synergises with the group.

I'd go with breith's suggestion and price it along with other spells. Remember, costs are not there to simulate a realistic economy but to balance the power level of the players.

Personally I reskin most magic services as rituals. Sure the local priest can provide the magical services the party needs but they're ritual specialists, not spell casters. The rituals they know are tied to their specific stone circle/temple/church. This is why the aforementioned priest can provide potentially powerful magical services but can't join up with part to deal with x threat.

How much casting should they have gotten in terms of proficiency, max level and frequency? What of their other class features should be given up to achieve this?

I like it. The class chassis provides cantrips and a handful of high powered magic to work in conjunction with some other core feature of the class e.g. eidolon/martial combat. If players want a little more low to mid level casting you have the option of multiclass archetypes. Seems fair to me.

This is a google doc made by a player (I don't remember the name, sorry), that lists all existing resistances.

That document is awesome.

The Owlcat official Discord not policing transphobia + them not having Anevia as a companion means this one is a hard pass for me.

If what your saying about the acceptance of transphobia on the Owlcat Discord is true then I'd be curious as to the culture at the company itself. It would be a shame for Paizo to be associated with something like that.

I hate myself knowing I'll end up getting this in spite of my experiences playing over 250 hours of the Kingmaker game.

No. If we check the spell itself, we can see that it has these two details:

"This disk is 2 feet in diameter and follows 5 feet behind you, floating just above the ground."

"The spell ends if a creature tries to ride atop the disk, if the disk is overloaded, if anyone tries to lift or force the disk higher above the ground, or if you move more than 30 feet away from the disk."

This pretty clearly states it stays just above the ground, and if you were on the ceiling it would simply stay directly below you. You could maybe use it to carry a bunch of pillows in case you fell, and then when you landed on them the spell would end, but not as a way to drop items from above.

Does this mean you couldn't use the spell on the third floor of a building?

I hadn't realised they'd been released.

My reading of the two feats is probably a no on the combining of them. While the former feat states a "as though they were undead" demons etc don't actually change their creature type. The latter feat works specifically on the undead creature type, which a demon or devil isn't.

As GM its a yes because that's more interesting and isn't likely to be detrimental to the game.

I've got a three player party, starting at second level with a free archetype. Party consists of a gnome tempest oracle with the blessed one archetype, ratfolk (tiefling) forensic medicine investigator with the ghost hunter archetype, and an orc sword and board fighter with archetype yet to be decided.

I wish all ancestries had lifespans comparable to or shorter than human lifespans. Maybe double at most for long lived ancestries. Never been keen on 800 year old elf thing.

I think there's already been a thread about wedigo.

My overall impression from this thread is that AoO is in a good place. A generally solid option but it ultimately comes down to build, playstyle, encounters etc.

I'm sure I heard somewhere that they were now focusing on coming up with new classes for 2e instead of converting 1e classes. Could be wrong though.

I wonder if it could go the way of the cavalier and comeback as an archetype?

A thread about alchemists where people recognise their potential? What happened?

I think talking to your GM is important; if the campaign is going to have a significant proportion of poison immune/resistant enemies I'd avoid the toxicologist for example. You also need to ensure the GM provides actionable information about creatures when you use recall knowledge.

It's worth considering how the alchemist could incorporate archetypes. The medic and herbalist archetypes are natural thematic pairings with the alchemist and the loremaster archetype benefits from the alchemists INT. It might require GM approval as a tactic but I like the idea of using alchemist poisons in conjunction with the snarecrafter snares. I also like the idea of taking the prescient planner and prescient consumable feats.

I find PF2 does a better job elucidating the mechanics of illusion magic than other systems I've played. This can help mitigate variance in GM/player expectations.

The "problem" here has more to with the fact that you only have 4 PCs and none of them are going to be able to pull off more than 1 heal per person per hour at BEST and even then it's going to come down to them needing Battle Medicine AND rolling well when you need it.

The sorcerer can cast Heal and Vital beacon. Those Searing Light spells we be devastating to the undead.

The point of witches is on top of their hats.

Spell casters need to stay in their lane. The days of PF1 god-wizards are over.

Secular Medic? On a cleric?

Decimus Drake wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

Abyssalwyrm wrote:

It's just impossible to effectively compete in melee combat with classes like fighter, monk and barbarian. Those can easily both out-damage you in melee combat, and out-tank you.

\

They don't get to out-wizard you do they?

This^^

Being good at melee and tanking is what these classes are for. If you gave caster's a spell to temporarily do melee as well as a fighter, what do fighters get in return? A feat that let's them cast spells as effectively as a full caster?

Multiclass casting dedications say hi.

So you're saying multiple class feats is a fair equivalent to a spell? Also that isn't just a feature for martials like fighters as even spell casters can take caster dedications. So bye multiclass dedications.

Pharasma would be a thematically appropriate deity, and the death domain gets you Death's Call and Eradicate Undeath focus spells. Cleric feats seem fairly obvious such as Cremate Undead and Fast Channel. The Knights of Lastwall Archetypes could be worth a look.

I'm sure it was out on the 5th. I guess they pushed it back. I have a similar scenario. I said to my player to just roll a fighter with wizard dedication and we'll retcon the class as necessary when the magus comes out.

The duskwalker versatile heritage should get you most of what you need for undead hunting, providing both offensive and defensive options. You want to have a good charisma score so you can maximize Divine Font. I'd also have a couple of different weapons so you can exploit vulnerabilities etc.

CorvusMask wrote:

Sidenote, despite having "vancian casting", does pathfinder actually use the "you remember spell and forget it" lore D&D has?

Like I've always imagined "spell preparation" to mean "you do whatever prayers/rituals/material gathering you need to cast a spell". Like when wizard casts fireball, they expend that magically prepared guano they had in their pouch and that is why they have only limited amount of fireballs per day

That's kind of how I saw it, back in the day. At the beginning of the day, the prepared spellcaster actually casts 90% or so of each spell, and they are sort of hanging around him invisibly, like loaded guns, waiting for him to utter those last few syllables and complete the precast spell.

Like a computer program pre-written and just waiting for him to bang that enter key.

I think of preparing spells as loading a very complex gun and casting it is akin to pulling the trigger.

I think it depends on what the others will be using. The medic archetype would benefit the party but I think that would be better on one of the other players as the champion gets lay on hands, you don't want to put all your healing eggs in one basket.

What do you know about the campaign you're playing?

In my experience free archetypes go a long way in shoring up a 3 player party so I'd try to push your GM in that direction. The extra versatility can help cover all your bases as well as enable more complex tactics in encounters. What it doesn't provide are the additional actions you'd have with a 4th player so encounters might need a little tweaking in relation to the action economy. The other issue is that it's yet another choice to make with character creation; I've actually had complaints that there's too much choice in PF2.

Abyssalwyrm wrote:

It's just impossible to effectively compete in melee combat with classes like fighter, monk and barbarian. Those can easily both out-damage you in melee combat, and out-tank you.

\

They don't get to out-wizard you do they?

This^^

Being good at melee and tanking is what these classes are for. If you gave caster's a spell to temporarily do melee as well as a fighter, what do fighters get in return? A feat that let's them cast spells as effectively as a full caster?

How easy would AV be to modify for three players and would free archetypes be sufficient?

How easy would AV be to modify for three players and would free archetypes be sufficient?

Alchemist has plenty of versatility.

I think the retcons in large part helps to delineate PF from it's DnD roots. It's not just creatures but also items, ioun stones became aeon stones for example.

In developing a more distinct identity Paizo have been able to move away from/rework the more problematic legacy elements e.g. drow, orcs etc. in what feels like a much more organic and sincere manner than WotC.

I just wish there was a way they could've scrapped ancestries living for hundreds of years.

In 2e changelings can be of the male sex. To give the the retcon some degree of in-world exlination it is stated that that male changelings are very rare and don't often get the call, this has led to the false assumption that male changelings didn't exist. In 1e it was explained that the only male offspring of hags were the caliban and these were created though coven magic; "just as changelings are always female, calibans are always male, and since they are the result of hags’ foul magics it is impossible for them to reproduce".

For obvious reasons, the skin colour of drow is now explicitly described as "an unearthly lavender sheen" instead of ranging "from coal black to a dusky purple".

In PF1 it was always the Witch and the Magus. Witch now feels like it's just...almost there. Like, I can still Hex a lot but not to the extent where I almost forget I have spell slots. Which is what I loved.

I'm the same. In PF1 I always thought of my witch as primarily a hex user who can cast some spells when needed. The hexes were the bread and butter and spells were there when I needed something niche or I if was pulling out the big guns.

I think the accessibility of healing abilities contributes to their frequent adoption. Anybody can get something healing related without necessarily investing a significant proportion of their character resources e.g. getting the Battle Medicine, Risky Surgery or Natural Medicine skill feats from a background or at second level. Healing abilities are also widespread, for example three of the four magical traditions can get access to healing spells and quite a few classes get healing related focus spells or other options such as the champion, monk, alchemist, rogue and investigator. This is all before you even get to archetypes that provide healing option with the medic, herbalist and blessed once most immediately coming to mind in addition to spell casting multiclass archetypes.

This plethora of options allows players to incorporate healing into a myriad of themes and concepts mundane or magical. I had a player coming from a D&D5e background who was intrigued with the a idea of playing a rogue who could provide meaningful healing to the party via skill feat. I have a character concept of a spirit instinct barbarian with blessed one archetype who could act as a secondary or tertiary healer. Both concepts are achievable with relative ease.

Finally as a GM I actively encourage the party to have multiple sources of healing. Even if there's a dedicated healer, having a secondary certainly won't hurt and will be beneficial when the dedicated healer becomes incapacitated or otherwise unavailable, out of range or out of actions.

Speaking as a GM I really like the lore skill. My rule of thumb is to reduce the DC of a check by 2 if the lore is directly relevant or increase it by 2 if the lore skill is only vaguely related, but ultimately it depends on the specificity of the lore in question. Though technically more focused than the Religion skill Lore: Theology still feels pretty broad so I probably wouldn't modify the DC compared to what it would be if you were using Religion.

I believe there are a handfull of variant rules that got further support.

Of the top of my head:
Mythic.
Called Shots.
Combat Stamina.
Story Feats.
And, Vehicles (to some extent).

More than half were 1 offs, related to a specific campaign, or trying to make some type of game easier (ex: sanity and horror rules).

I'd add rituals to the list.

Is there a melee or thrown weapon option for bow fighters?

Forgetting PF1e is some of the best advice for playing PF2e. I've only GM'd PF2e and overall I like it. Combat encounters are an improvement both in the action economy and that a team game requiring a greater degree of team play.

It makes martial characters much more interesting to play; gone are the days where just standing still making full attacks is the best/only course of action. Yes PF2e is more tactical than PF1e but the bar was very low.

I'll admit that magic doesn't feel as good in PF2e than it did in PF1e. But I'll also admit that magic was often brokenly overpowered in the first edition; your spellcasters are unlikely to be ending a combat encounter with a single spell. I do think that in an effort to reign in magic use Paizo may have overcorrected. Another significant change is yhe introduction of magic traditions, probably better in the long run though I do think spellcaster classes can end up lacking in identity. I miss the weird janky spell list of the witch and don't think the hex focus spells make up for it.

Regarding combat encounter, I find that individual turns take longer in PF2e but players do a lot more on them and the number of rounds is fewer. This will of course depend on your players.

I prefer the new system and evangelise when I can but I also believe that Claxon's position is perfectly agreeable and valid.

Realism took a detour when speaking words and waving hands around caused people to shoot lightning, summon creatures, teleport etc.

It's a shame the scrounger archetype doesn't scale better; combine it with the snarecrafter on an alchemist and you've got a character with a strong inventor vibe.

If we get an inventor class, I want golems in some form. Even if it's just "you get an animal companion that's a construct".

Isn't one of the eidolon forms for the summoner a construct?

My first thought is that I should start playing Guild Wars 2 again. Here's a question to consider if some god or powerful being was to make it so she could live a life of reasonable wealth and safety, what would she do and how would she behave?

Stilts.

I've always been a bit weary of giving out items that effectively mimic class feats and abilities.

Interestingly while there seems to nothing to support it RAW, as a GM I've always just assumed that the two actions to use poison on a weapon consisted one action to draw the poison (so long as it's in a belt pouch or bandolier) and one action to apply it. I'd recommend adopting this approach instead of trying to come up with an item.

As you can tell I'm quite generous in my approach to poisons. Another rule I have is that once a poison applied to a weapon or added to food etc it's considered "used" for the purpose of time limits relating to quick alchemy and advanced alchemy.

Even if you decide that advanced alchemy poisons on weapons become inert after a day the alchemist can still envenom their weapons and ammunition at the start of the day and reapply it as and when.

If ever I escape the GM seat and get to play in a suitable campaign, I have an idea for a toxicologist alchemist with the medic and/or snarecrafter archtypes. My plan for using poison in combat is to use a blowgun with pre-prepared darts (with the Subtle Delivery feat), blight bombs (with Quick Bomber), a crossbow for long range and four envenomed daggers. The daggers would give him a two-action (at most) melee/short range poison attack. I think this setup would provide me with more than enough envenomed attacks for most encounters.

This is also a great resource that Archives of Nethys put together.

I did not know about that. It'll be a great help.