Search Posts
I must admit though, this discussion is making me a little curious - what would be the strongest mono-class party (with multiclassing allowed)? Sorcerers of different bloodlines, of course. :)
The scoundrel's signature benefit for the party is a relatively easy and reliable ability to make an opponent become flat-footed with an additional -2 to Perception and Reflex saves for a round, at a cost of one action, by level 2. I'm under the impression (from my own reading of the rules) that the level two feat to which you refer would only penalize reflex saves from your own effects unless you critically succeed the feint check. Thus, your feints only affect other members of your team (reflex or otherwise) if you crit. Does that happen often against equal level foes? The thought of going toe-to-toe with a foe long enough to get the crit off scares me.
Another incredible support character, for a caster heavier team is a scoundrel rogue. I'd be happy to hear how this type of a support character works out in gameplay because I was thinking about making a "skills" character. Within that chassis I was considering my options (scoundrel, scoundrel/esoteric, investigator/esoteric, esoteric/rogue, maestro/rogue). A lot of these options seem to slide the scale between very skills oriented to being a mix of skills and combat. Those that are better at combat of the bunch (scoundrel, esoteric/rogue, and maestro/rogue) vary in whether they do combat as melee, skills, or spells. With all that said, what does the scoundrel do for the party? How much of what they do is just skills? Are the skills mostly Cha skills, or do the knowledge and dex skills keep pace as well? If it's mostly skills, is it anything that some bard with rogue dedication and a bunch of skill mastery couldn't do just as well while having access to full casting? How key is trapfinding for such a character? Prioritize Int, Wis, or Dex as a secondary skill to Cha? Thanks for any answers you or others get around to!
Neither Stand nor Drop Prone leave their square, how do you reconcile that with your view? [levity] Clearly, "Drop Prone" means plant your feet and tip forward. [/levity]
Not a rules question per se, but I think it's topical - Why is the trigger for reactive shield restricted to melee attacks? Why, despite the trigger, does the AC bonus apply to all attacks?
As someone whose knee jerk reaction to PF2's announcement was bewilderment and loss, It's lovely that I now have trouble narrowing down my favorite parts of the system. That said... Changes to full casters: Aha! It was a trick! I couldn't pick just one, but it all fits under this umbrella. Due to re balancing of spell power, the great softening of save or suck via degrees of success, easier levels 1-2, and the dignity of all martials, I feel able to have fun playing a full caster for the first time. This thread has a lot more on the topic.
(Studied Strike Overhaul) Nanja'd! I had very similar thoughts, and was just scrolling through the thread to see if anyone had made such a post. I think that shroudb's changes to studied strike massively improve the ability because: 1.) It makes studied strike feel remarkably more like its own ability rather than being "the investigator's sneak attack".2.) It is much more interesting as a damage ability because of gauging how close your enemy is to defeat. i.e. against a foe with infinite hp you would always solve at +3, but hmmm, that guy's looking a bit wobbly and I'm only at +1... 3.) "Solved" is a freaking fantastic name. I have concerns about bloating the list of class feats, but I would like some of the additional effects at 5th, 9th etc. to be specific to one's methodology. For example, the empiricist can calculate at their current bonus whether they kill the target with an average damage "solved", the alchemist can strike the right spot with a poisoned weapon to penalize the target's save, and the forensicist can either apply bleed or obfuscate the cause of death. e.g. you killed the target with a "solved" attack with a rapier, but someone who sees the body falsely concludes they were killed by a vampire!
On the topic of aid, you no longer need to be capable of making the check on your own.
I haven't seen anything about minimum damage being one. Inspire courage affects spell damage rolls. In most campaigns you can channel with downed enemies nearby and not revive them.
One qualm I have with the one foot line method is that it depends too much on geometry. In the example of firing around a corner, how many squares from the corner your target is determines in you have line of effect. I doubt, if/when we get a ruling on the topic, that it will end up being that complicated.
Re: cover - correct. Re: line of effect - in 1E it was any line through both squares. In the playtest it was center to center. In the 2E CRB it is completely unspecified, which is what I want to draw attention to. Re: the picture - The target demonstrably has no line of effect by playtest rules. In 1E I believe the line could originate from a corner of your square but had to pass through the interior of theirs (no line of effect). Although unspecified, I find no reasonable interpretation of 2E's rules to allow line of effect either.
My reason for combining line of effect and cover is due to how intertwined they were in the playtest. I'm curious if your interpretation is the same as mine that by playtest rules the caster in the picture does not have line of effect.I don't understand what the playtest has to do with the final rules: I'm 100% talking about the final rules, and by the final rules, there is line of effect. By the playtest rules, I don't know. I'm not pulling them out to see. I think they are relevant for two reasons. 1.) The playtest was of course the "beta" version of PF2E. There is arguably a precedent set by playtest rules for how PF2E works in cases where the new CRB (which ofc 100% trumps any old rules) uses the unchanged wording from the playtest. In the case of line of effect, it clearly does to meaningful extent.2.) The justification I understand you are making for the caster in the picture having line of effect is that an unlocked path can be drawn. The playtest used (I think?) your language verbatim and still didn't grant line of effect. I feel I may not be getting getting my point across if you read me to be saying that playtest rules should still be followed in 2E.
Miscommunication, sorry. By "around corners" I meant like in the picture in my OP where casty's target has cover around a corner. To reiterate my point, the playtest had the exact same wording as you quoted above, i.e. "you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell." However, the playtest also seemed to deem many common examples of standard cover (e.g. said corner, or a pillar, etc) capable of blocking line of effect. So maybe line of affect is more restricted than you assume? My reason for combining line of effect and cover is due to how intertwined they were in the playtest. I'm curious if your interpretation is the same as mine that by playtest rules the caster in the picture does not have line of effect.
You usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell. So you just need to be able to draw a line between the 2 that isn't blocked. That's it. "you have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier." As long as any part of them isn't behind a barrier [ie, a line can be drawn], it's fine to target. So even greater cover doesn't affect line of effect as being able to "barely see one another" is still an "unblocked path to the target".The issue I see with such quick dismissal is that the playtest also used the language "You usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell" .... yet line of effect didn't go around corners. That's the language we still have. Miscommunication, sorry. By "around corners" I meant like in the picture in my OP where casty's target has cover around a corner. To reiterate my point, the playtest had the exact same wording as you quoted above, i.e. "you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell." However, the playtest also seemed to deem many common examples of standard cover (e.g. said corner, or a pillar, etc) capable of blocking line of effect. So maybe line of affect is more restricted than you assume?
You usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell. So you just need to be able to draw a line between the 2 that isn't blocked. That's it. "you have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier." As long as any part of them isn't behind a barrier [ie, a line can be drawn], it's fine to target. So even greater cover doesn't affect line of effect as being able to "barely see one another" is still an "unblocked path to the target". The issue I see with such quick dismissal is that the playtest also used the language "You usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell" .... yet line of effect didn't go around corners. That's the language we still have.
There seems to have been substantial change in the line of effect rules from first edition (link) to second edition (link). Additionally, line of effect was described differently in the playtest than in either edition. Here are the important differences:
Pathfinder 1E case: If standard cover blocks line of effect, then some of the cover rules do not make sense. Specifically, the following methodology for determining if you have cover from an area spell is provided:
Standard cover gives you a +2 circumstance bonus to AC, to Reflex saves against area effects … Draw a line from the center of your space to the center of the target’s space. If that line passes through any terrain or object that would block the effect, the target has standard cover … When measuring cover against an area effect, draw the line from the effect’s point of origin to the center of the creature’s space. But line of effect is necessary to even be affected by the spell in the first place: In an area effect, creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected. So it is nonsensical to give +2 to AC and Reflex saves to a target behind cover if said cover makes the target immune to the spell’s effects. Playtest case: It is arguable that in cases of ambiguity, the playtest’s precedent should be followed and any contradictions from PF1E rules are irrelevant and thus ignorable. If a rule was unchanged upon full release of PF2E, shouldn’t the rule work as it did in the playtest? For emphasis, line of effect rules in the PF2E CRB are clearly held over from the playtest:You usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability. This is called the line of effect. If you need to check whether you have a line of effect, draw a line like you do when determining cover. When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability. This is called a line of effect. You have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier. Furthermore, the rules for cover can still make sense with “playtest line of effect rules” because the text from above: “When measuring cover against an area effect, draw the line from the effect’s point of origin to the center of the creature’s space.” Can be applied to lesser cover, or future types of unusual cover. Lastly, a visual way of representing the problem:
X W W W
Does the caster have line of effect to the target (i.e. an “unblocked path to the target of the spell”)? Developer insight on this issue would be ideal (e.g. in an FAQ or on the Friday podcast), but hope is faint, and I’d greatly appreciate the community’s thoughts on the topic.
I think you've raised a good question, and it's a bit up to interpretation of whether "You send a dart of force streaking toward a creature that you can see" is rules text or not. That sentence clearly contradicts what constitutes line of effect, so it's my opinion that magic missile does not require line of effect.
I know there's been some chatter about it in this thread; the dueling sword is supposed to be sp and not gp. It was mentioned on the Pathfinder Fridays twitch stream. (Sorry if it's been mentioned, but ctrl+f didn't turn anything up)
If it's a PFS character I think you've got to. Otherwise, negotiate with your GM! I would wave it, personally. Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to blow the human ancestry feat that gives you an unusual weapon in order to overcome the penalty in a "fair" way.
Rest in peace 1E PA. It would go so much better with a mug fighter.
I apologize in advance for not knowing how to format a beautiful character like Ravingdork has, so I'll use these forums instead. My imperial blooded sorc/champion of Cayden:
Notes/play style: I plan on being a frontline sorc, using true strike + shocking grasp for damage but being very buff-focused. I plan on casting a lot of false life, growth, haste, heroism, etc. Teammates will also benefit from lay on hands, DR from liberator reaction, counterspells, and battle medic (which will have assurance for reliability). The character will be armored with full plate and a steel shield for 18+lvl+item AC levels 1-13, 20+lvl+item beyond. I am very excited for the frontline casting play style that 2E allows, as well as the diverse options for spontaneous casting, single action healing, and reactions.
re: "WHERE" - This may be to what you were referring, but one could throw their foe to a square that would cause a >5ft drop to apply prone and light damage. Staying heads-up in combat to look for such opportunities sounds like fun. Also, if you can find the one GM who allows it, directing your throw to be nearly vertical would add ~15 damage and auto prone to all successes.
Could you elaborate re: cover?
Though I haven't quite read cover to cover, I'm not seeing anything in 2E analogous to size modifiers in 1E. Besides the specific abilities that apply modifiers based on relative size, are there any size modifiers to stats like stealth, AC, attack rolls, etc? Thanks.
An idea - take the combat climbing feat to reduce the number of hands needed to climb to one. Then, whenever someone tries to climb nearby you, use your monastic speed to climb next to 'em, grab 'em by their ankle, and throw 'em 30ft off the wall! Falling damage got buffed, so this might actually kill people.
I saw that mistake pointed out in the large thread where folks are noting typos. I think we're all assuming it's supposed to be negative.
Awesome! I was deceived by how explicitly AoO calls out that "This Strike doesn’t count toward your multiple attack penalty, and your multiple attack penalty doesn’t apply to this Strike." Crane flutter gives no such reassurance.
I have a question about the sixth level monk feat crane flutter which gives the following reaction: Your circumstance bonus to AC from Crane Stance increases to +3 against the triggering attack. If the attack misses you, you can immediately make a crane wing Strike against the attacker at a –2 penalty, even if the attacker isn’t within your reach. Am I correct, given you are using flurry each turn, that this retaliatory strike is being made at a -10 penalty? If so, how good do you folks think this feat is? +3 AC seems large, but I'm not sure it offsets taking 2 feats and attacking with d6's.
What source are you thinking of?
Why's that? I know very little about the feat.
Thoughts on what feat is best to lose for divine interference? (instead of taking it at lvl 13)
I should add that I'm not opposed to casting summon monster X. I think summoning monsters can add utility to any caster. Instead, I do not want to completely gut the build to be focused on summoning.
Oracles are a nine-levels spellcasting class -- unless it is your deliberate intent to do so, you shouldn't nerf the most powerful aspect of the class by ignoring it to instead devote your feats to weapon-play. I.e., what does Power Attack bestow upon you at, say, 11th level? Six miserable extra points of damage in a one-handed melee attack at the cost of -3 to hit. Compare that to what Superior Summoning does: give you a whole extra pet monster, which I'll bet does a helluvalot more than +6hp damage. Or Divine Interference, which let's you force enemies to reroll their crits on the party. In fairness, PA adds 9 damage per hit at 11th level. That means adding roughly 40% to my damage even after increasing my damage with buffs. I still consider it one of the feats which could be cut for divine interference - a suggestion you brought up which would make great use of my plentiful low level spell slots. As for general playstyle, I'm not looking to build a summoner. (I wouldn't be playing a battle oracle if that were the case.) Thus, I'm evaluating feats like PA not from a "is attacking > summoning" standpoint, but rather a "how good is -x to hit +3x damage" standpoint.
@Magda you bring up an interesting DPR comparison between PA and combat reflexes. The deciding factor for me was eventually getting fortuitous on my weapon. The enchant would give PA extra value while not interacting with combat reflexes. My current plan is to go with the original build but with the racial +2 in strength, replacing reactionary with magical lineage, and replacing extra revelation with quicken spell. (either at 7th or 9th level, same as PA) Another question (sort of brought up by Magda): What do you all think of skill at arms? Some call it a trap, but I disagree on the basis of getting +3 AC and a significantly expanded threat range with weapon mastery. As things stand, I think it basically replaces combat healer in my build.
My math on my battle oracle was that with divine favor I should always be using power attack. With the buff layed out I could frequent exceed the barbarian and fighter to hit at higher levels. Power attack actually has some self correction for lower accuracy class build it. Most 3/4th bab classes with accuracy boost should be power attacking. Agreed. I do consider PA to be one of my weaker feats, though. If I take quicken spell, I would likely replace either PA of extra revelation: surprising charge. (And then get charge with the ring)
Once again, I would appreciate second opinions in this. Slim Jim made me reconsider taking the tattoo due to the strong alternatives. (After all, I can get something like a lucky horseshoe by taking a GP hit.) I'd consider taking either orc ferocity or human-raised (for skilled) instead. The power attack suggestion surprised me. Some napkin math showed that after buffing a couple times, (which I think the reach strategy permits) I'm reaching fairly large bonuses to hit. (+18 at level 8, around when I planned on taking PA). Going from +18/+18/+13 1d10+14 to +16/+16/+11 1d10+20 seemed strong. Thoughts?
This is good advice about why quickening DF is strong, and I agree. I'm still interested in hearing how you all would go about doing it. I can think of 3 "ways": getting a lesser metamagic rod, taking the feat, or taking the feat and getting 1-2 traits to lower the spell level. If I do decide to take trait(s), I feel that there is a whole conversation to be had about how best to do that. I don't like taking extra traits because my build is already tight. I'm left thinking that maybe I should replace reactionary with magical lineage.
Just checking: As of right now/forever any bardic performance ends any bardic masterpiece? It's been so many years/pages I can't remember.
I'm curious about your thoughts on DF. I'm assuming that as soon as I hit 8, DP would be my opening spell in every combat. (+3 to hit and damage, extra attack) Do you still consider quickened DF to be strong after learning DP? If so, how would you go about quickening it? A rod is quite expensive, but without one DF is a fifth level spell. (only 3rd with extra traits)
I had the charisma as a primary stat so that I could always meet the bonus spell slot requirements. Admittedly, I haven't played a caster which immediately gets 3 spell slots before. (e.g. oracle or sorc) Do you think that falling behind in cha and capping it around 18 is worth it?
I'm admittedly unfamiliar with some of the feats you are using, but some of your math confuses me. Why does seething hatred give +5 to hit? Also, doesn't focused target give a maximum of +1 to hit? Why does weapon focus give +1 damage? There may already be threads about it, but I read sap adept to only grant +3 dmg because you have 3 sneak dice. Finally, being invisible does not activate sap master, so you may want to consider that damage a rare bonus rather than your typical amount.
Hi all! This is a build I'm making for PFS. My goal is to create a capable front-liner with lots of spells. As far as advice goes, I'd appreciate any suggestions about stats, traits, feats, revelations, mystery, magic gear, and magic items. For backstory reasons, this character must be an archetype-less half-orc oracle of Pharasma with the tongues curse. Stats:
Traits: fate’s favored (I’m taking the tattoo), reactionary Feats: 1 improved initiative
Revelations: (battle) 1 skill at arms
Armor: mythral full plate of speed. (can I slap spikes on this?)
Any suggestions to fill in the gaps in my items would be quite helpful. Thanks!
Channel pools are separate, and the second channel pool doesn't meet the prerequisite of 3d6. I completely understand your reasoning. However, I don't thing a channel pool has to meet the pre-req's for anything. The character does. The argument in favor is that your character has already done what is necessary to take the feat, and the benefit of the feat allows you to improve any channel you create.
I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts are about the following. A character uses their channeling ability from one class to meet the prerequisites for a feat such as fateful channel, liberation channel, or conversion channel. But they also have another pool of channeling energy - say just 1d6 - by taking levels in a different class. Can the character apply the benefit of these feats with the little channel? The wording of the benefit for these feats doesn't seem restricted to the larger channel, making me think it's allowed. However, it seems possibly unintended, and I would not be surprised if it's been FAQ'ed, etc. Thanks!
bumping for posterity
If the official decision is to use we are calling "option #3", that masterpieces are not performances whatsoever, is the full audit still necessary? The issue as I understand from reading this thread is that there are a lot of features (feats, items, etc.) which interact with bardic performance. If some masterpieces are treated as performances for the purposes of these features, a full audit of each masterpiece would be called for to ensure no broken corner case interactions. However, I do not know of items that specifically reference a bardic masterpiece. (I'd appreciate if someone could point out any.) If we are running with option three, all the features which reference performances do not interact with masterpieces, so no corner cases right? I feel that the biggest bar preventing this FAQ (for years) is the audit, but in my mind it may be unnecessary if option #3 becomes official. TLDR: If masterpieces are not performances, why audit items which mention performances?
Neat. The specific helm I was looking at was the Batrachian helm. link
As per the title: Can a druid (no metal armor or shields) or a monk (no armor or shields) wear a metal helmet? Due to the lack of mechanical use for helmets, I do not know of any precedent that states all helmets are considered armor. I understand that part of a "suit of armor" is the helmet, but is there a Pathfinder rule which says such?
You're really grasping at straws here. How does a "nearer miss" make the bomb itself more potent? It doesn't. If I miss on an 11 compared to missing on a 10, the minimum damage result would still be the same, which means you can't disprove his point.A nearer miss, perhaps? A conceptual response to a conceptual complaint. Your critique that my statement has no rules based could also be applied to the post I was replying to.
A nearer miss, perhaps?
|
