Another problem Ancestry; Poppets have the construct trait, which say this: "When reduced to 0 Hit Points, a construct creature is destroyed" but unlike Automatons they do not have a rule like Automaton Core that contradicts this.
This falls under too bad to be true IMO, so I think it's safe to say that there are some mistakes in how some Ancestries are written RAW.
It seems like there ought to have been a "Living" trait which applies to most creatures that makes them need to breathe, sleep and have blood. It'd be nice if what it meant to be "Living" was explicitly described somewhere, it would be a little too onerous to add living to all those stat blocks now.
Maybe there should even be a defined baseline (you breathe, you eat, you sleep, you bleed etc.) for what PCs are that you do not deviate from no matter your traits unless you get an actual ability from your Ancestry or elsewhere that tells you to. I know that sort of thing annoys some people though.
It doesn't work with bows because:
1 - IMO they don't spend any interact actions to reload (I know this one has already been debated on the forums)
2 - Even if you could "reload" it you still need two hands on the bow when you make a Strike, requiring you to drop your off-hand implement and causing you to not benefit from Implements Empowerment regardless.
Not my GM, or me when I'm GMing, but I've certainly seen some deeply conservative takes on what constitutes mitigation on these forums!
For some reason I thought Quickened and Slowed directly cancelled each other, but given that's not the case I'd 100% allow that option to Time Oracles, but the Electricity resistance deniers might not.
The trick is to figure out how to get an extra action so you can move and cast; presumably several spells you know can do this.
I don't know, Quickened doesn't work obviously because you can't directly mitigate the curse in any way. A Mature mount is probably fine to get a move, but even then some GMs might call that mitigation...
Concealed, and only after moving, is not strong enough to justify being in the major curse in combat IMO. Definitely a curse where you want to avoid the cursed state as much as possible, you're here for the focus spells (hopefully, only seen one) and the speed bonus, with the major curse being a very hard soft limit on your focus spells.
Time Oracle sure has a brutal curse. Permanent Slowed 1 at major? Actually might be the worst curse, which is saying something.
Time Skip is a great focus spell though, 1 action to give an ally within 30ft haste for 1 round and +1 heightens for additional allies. Looking forward to seeing if the other focus spells make the downsides of that curse worth it!
I've found Outlaws of Alkenstar pretty great so far to run, although that may be because of the full Foundry module support being so good. The only poor part of it so far is one full level that seemed super rushed, and looking at the XP provided there is no way to reach the milestone for the next level using pure XP.
It all seems to fit together pretty well though, I don't see any discordant genre shifts. You can't really expect the large city in the middle of the mana wastes, wedged between Nex and Geb, in Golarion, to just have frontier west themes after all. That wouldn't make any sense.
A cold-based Meteor Swarm is exactly as many effects as a fire-based Meteor Swarm.
What is the point of the third option of the Wish spell if you aren't able to produce any effect whose power level is in line with a 9th level or lower Arcane Spell, or a 7th level or lower non-arcane Spell? Sure, your GM has to agree that it is in line with those spells (same as anything else subjective in the game), but if they do then they should allow it by RAW.
This clause is separate and different to the "The GM might allow you to try using wish to produce greater effects than these" clause. It's effectively saying "the GM will allow you to produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects", in exactly the same way as it is saying "the GM will allow you to duplicate any arcane spell of 9th level or lower."
What does the third clause of the Wish spell allow you to do in your opinion? You are the one houseruling here (and that's fine!), not those running the spell how it is written.
RAW the Wish spell allows you to produce any effect that has a power level that is in line with a 9th level Arcane Spell.
Pointed question here, do you honestly think that a cold damage version of Meteor Swarm is generally out of line with the power level of a 9th level arcane spell? Would you say that Meteor Swarm warranted a nerf if the spell currently did cold damage instead of fire damage? If not, then can you explain how it doesn't fall under the third option of the Wish spell?
Your description of a player looking for a solution "in all the spells accessible by Wish" is only allowing for two out of four explicitly allowed effects listed in the Wish spell. One of the clearly listed options of what you can produce with the Wish spell, without GM permission, is any effect that is in line with the power of a 9th level Arcane spell. If you think that an effect that is identical in damage to an existing 9th level spell, but with sidegraded damage type, doesn't fall under that description, then what does? This clause specifically allows the effect to be outside of existing spells as long as it is not out of line power wise. What use would this be if you decided that any effect that is different than an existing spell must have inherently more power simply due to adding to the flexibility of the Wish spell, and should therefore should default to the later GM fiat clause?
If you think that Wish is too powerful go ahead and nerf it, but I don't understand the argument that disallows swapping a common damage type to another by RAW, it seems exactly what the third option in the Spell is for tbh.
"You state a wish, making your greatest desire come true. A wish spell can produce any one of the following effects.
- Duplicate any arcane spell of 9th level or lower.
The GM might allow you to try using wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so might be dangerous or the spell might have only a partial effect."
I'm pretty sure that by the wording of the Wish spell you do not need GM permission to produce an effect that is in line with the power of a 9th level arcane spell, you only need permission to exceed it. Now you can attempt to argue that a cold damage version of the meteor swarm spell exceeds it in power, but it seems very dubious to me. I can't see a reasonable argument as to why Cold damage is generally more powerful than Fire damage, can anyone explain this?
Do you believe that the Wish spell is checking how powerful the suggested effect is in the context of the current situation? Would you allow a Wizard to Wish for a Cold Meteor Swarm if they were attempting to use it on a group of White Dragons because it would be weaker than a 9th level spell in that context?
How does an effect that is identical to Meteor Swarm but produces Cold damage instead of Fire damage not have a power level that is in line with a 9th level Arcane Spell?
Because actual subclasses are usually more effective at fulfilling a theme/idea than multiclassing due to getting unique and specific mechanics that support that idea. Same reason a Gunslinger isn't just a Fighter with a gun, or Battle Oracle isn't just a Cleric with a Fighter Dedication + RP, or a Magus isn't just a Fighter with a Wizard Dedication. Just look at all the subclasses/classes that could be made by just multiclassing, but are an actual class or subclass and are better for it.
I think what Wish is asking when it says "Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects", being a 9th level Arcane or 7th level non-Arcane Spell, is if it were a printed Spell would it be too strong? I don't think anyone would call Comet Storm, the cold version of Meteor Swarm, too strong if Paizo printed it as it is quite clearly on par with Meteor Swarm. I don't see a good argument for Cold damage being meaningfully overall stronger than Fire damage. It would be different if it was a damage type that Arcane casters usually don't get access to.
Getting to pick and choose the damage type at the time of casting isn't part of this duplicated Spell's power budget (this made up spell is ALWAYS cold after all), it's part of Wish's power budget as a 10th level Spell.
I think I remember reading about a similar problem in the Foundry PF2e discord (highly recommend it if you're using Foundry) and it was a bug with the Alkenstar Module. You should be able to disable the Alkenstar module after it has imported everything, which should fix the bug.
You only need to have the AP module enabled to import all the scenes and stuff, disable it while you're running the game. Hope the fix for your bug is that simple!
That's because the RK rules are vague, ambiguous and confusing. Could be much improved.
Recall Knowledge is extremely GM dependent as the base rules for it are rather bad.
I don't care if you want to invalidate people's opinions, I'm just suggesting that you do it based on more than 'they disagree with you' and 'some people who have opinions about things formed them uncritically'.
If you disagree with someone because they have nothing supporting their opinion then say that, don't say "I've found this study that says when people repeat an argument a lot it can cause people to agree with it uncritically. Hey people I argue with have an argument and I KNOW they're wrong, they must have accepted it uncritically!" Not saying that's your intention, but you sound like you're trying to dismiss any consensus of a class being weak when it suits you, an "I'll know it when I see it" approach.
You mentioned the "presentation of actual evidence" as something you can use to identify cases where the people who disagree with you have opinions that were formed uncritically, do you have any examples of a consensus formed around a class's balance that has fallen prey to this bias? I'd like to see the arguments that you're suggesting we ought to dismiss as uncredible (and instead recognise as simply familiar) based on this psychological phenomena.
Shouldn't that also be the case about people claiming a class is fine and needs no changes then? Or maybe we could leave the ambiguous pop psychology that completely dismisses the validity of the opinions of those we disagree with out of the discussion unless it has specific relevance?
I've seen plenty of posts, usually from the same people, about how the Alchemist is fine and needs (or needed, before it got Errata'd) no changes, but I've also seen plenty of posts from entirely new players asking for Alchemist advice because they hate it.
It requires the spell to have a Targets entry or an area, so it wouldn't work on things like Mage Armour.
Playing the Wrath of the Righteous crpg really makes me miss the dozen archetypes per class world of 1e, it really let you make a specific focused idea that was quite distinct from every other character made with that class.
I love the generic (as in they can go with any class, not that they're boring) archetypes of 2e as well, just wish we had some of both.
I only realized the other day you can't step while flying - this means that someone/thing that can AoO up in your/their grill is going to trigger it, guaranteed. Either they use a move action to stay up, or they fall. Either way, free attack!
Falling doesn't trigger AoO, and they can reaction to arrest a fall and take no damage. This edition is very kind to fliers when it comes to fall damage
I don't see any restriction on your Eidolon gaining/using Tandem actions, which is what the Steed Form feat allows. Am I missing a mechanic that applies this restriction to your Eidolon as well?
Edit: Oh I see, the "Due to your tenuous link, you can't gain or use tandem actions." is ambiguous, "you" could refer to the PC or both the PC and the Eidolon.
It isn't trumped actually, because nowhere in the Horse's support ability does it say that the bonus is "based on a weapon's number of damage dice", just damage dice in general.
Here's that wording:
There is a following statement that says "If your weapon already has the jousting weapon trait, increase the trait’s damage bonus by 2 per die instead." which I think strongly implies that it should be referring to weapon damage dice, but strictly RAW it could easily refer to a spell attack's damage dice for example.
That's why it should be cleared up, it ought to say Strike instead of attack and it should say it adds a circumstance bonus to damage equal to twice the number of weapon damage dice.
That depends on whether you think the game allows actions like Strike to be modified into weird hybrid activities and still be allowed to function in things like Flurry of Blows or Spellstrike. If you don't think "Strike-but-it-includes-an-interact-that-takes-zero-actions" is the same as "Strike" for those purposes then it does sort of break the game for those weapons.
If Paizo didn't use Errata to buff the many poorly balanced things in 1e, then I'd guess they aren't going to do it much to the significantly less unbalanced 2e. The best we can hope for is an Unchained version of those classes which have disappointed a good chunk of their fans, or more class specific class archetypes if those ever manifest.
Where are you getting this? The Mounted Combat rules are describing a case when you're riding a regular animal, not an Animal Companion, or do you think because it mentions you needing to Command an Animal for each action your mount takes that you don't get the usual AC two actions? The general rule says you have to command your mount, but the more specific Mature Animal Companion feat says it gets an action even if you don't do that, so it overrides.
Note: the general rule for Animal Companions also requires you to command them for them to get actions, do you really think Mature Animal Companion doesn't override that limitation?
I think all three of those should see a few class archetypes before going Unchained. There are plenty of people satisfied with the chassis of them as-is, so an "Unchained" version would likely just muddy the waters.
I think when there's a big divide in satisfaction regarding classes is exactly when Unchained is most suitable. I know plenty of people thought the Chained Monk (with adequate system mastery and archetypes) was stronger than the Unchained Monk in 1e, and those people were free to keep playing Chained Monks. The Unchained versions really made it so the classes had wider appeal outside of the groups that already thought they were great, it didn't take anything away from the originals.
I do agree though, if it is possible within Paizo's framework to make these classes more widely appealing just through class archetypes then that'd be fine as well.
Wish Paizo would focus a bit more on buffing things like Witch and a bit less on nerfing stuff that is barely a problem.
Like, I get that they got it earlier than other ancestries could, but they also get terrible reach and can't even melee attack adjacent creatures while mounted unless they use a reach weapon. I doubt they were really competing with stuff like Human's multitalented Ancestry feat at the upper end of optimisation...
It'd be nice if they'd release a 5th, or even 9th, level Ancestry feat for Sprites (and future familiar riding Ancestries) that reenabled independent while mounted, and maybe gave an additional familiar ability so you can offset being forced to take Scent.
Might be a challenge to get your hands on, as it is unique. The only thing that's way out of line of an equivalent Longbow is the range tbh, the damage isn't too much compared to Longbows with Deadly at that level (especially including an additional 2-3d6 damage from property runes they'll get, it's probably a good bit lower). It'd probably be okay to have it be that strong given its rarity.
You don't have expert proficiency in animal form as a fighter as I'm sure has been stated a dozen times.
You do with the Martial Artist dedication. So it costs you four out of your seven fighter feats by level 10.
I'm guessing Fighter'll be getting the Gunslinger proficiency treatment next errata so that they can't do this (though it'll makes switchhitting with them pretty crap, same as Gunslinger) but who knows, maybe paizo just did that so you couldn't build a Gunslinger and completely ignore guns/xbows by archetyping.
And what about the Mounted Melee Magus? They can do the exact same routine with higher damage.
Or, much scarier, the Mounted Fighter multiclassed into Magus. They can easily do the exact same thing as the Starlit Span Magus, but with +2 to hit and a bigger damage dice weapon. Keep in mind that with True Strike you're probably only doing The Big One once (maybe twice) a fight with the Starlit Span anyway.
And what about the Sixth Pillar leaping Magus (12th level, but you can get a 35ft Leap whenever you cast a spell)?
Fighter Multiclass into Monk for Monastic Archer + FoB + Ki Strike?
Oh, that's pretty decent.
The full routine is a lot more rigid to use than Ranger though, and you have to consider the recharge means you can't True Strike consistently. I think a better comparison for the Focus Point Spellstrike is to the Monastic Archer Monk with Ki Strike. It has less range, but does similar damage with more versatility on a better chassis (saves, health).
The real danger for Ranged DPR comparisons is a Fighter multiclassing into either Monk or Magus and getting these effects with their inherent +2 to hit, even if it is only for one round per combat.
Step 1: Cast 5+ Fireballs onto a small sack with a trigger like "people who aren't holding x holy symbol", or "people with their fingers crossed", whatever works.
High Reflex and Evasion + Fire Resist means they don't take much damage per Fireball, but enemies are toast.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
If I wanted to add some alphastrike ability, I guess you could take Cleric Archetype and get the channel smite feats focusing on the ability to alphastrike with Channel Smite using most of your slots for alphastriking. Though I prefer to boost AC and attack rolls with Protection and Heroism.
I don't think you can get Channel Smite unless you're an actual Cleric unfortunately. It has harmful/healing font as a prerequisite.
Cordell Kintner wrote:
I can move around with an arrow nocked to my bow, and it isn't of a modern style. You can use a finger from the hand holding the bow to hold the arrow in place while putting slight pressure on the nock, it's quite easy.
Because measuring what is "Too Good To Be True" by whether or not two completely different parts of the rules are treated inconsistently is not a good way to balance the game. Point being that a feat like quick draw being disrupted due to being an activity with subordinate actions and therefore the manipulate trait is not a good argument for reload 0 weapons being overpowered or too good if it were ruled that they were not disrupted. They're two entirely different things, one is a feat that lets you draw a weapon and attack and one is a part of the core rules of some weapons basic Strikes. Comparing them beat for beat is not very useful.
This was in response to Darksol's argument that the interpretation of the rules that did not disrupt bow strikes/reloads on AoO was too good to be true because Quick Draw exists and is a feat that is 1 action, involves drawing an item, and is interrupted on crit.
Inconsistent narratively? Yes, plenty of things are. Too good to be true? No, this will not make Archers too strong or invalidate Quick Draw in any way. It seems very minor from a balance perspective given how niche this situation is.
So do those who think that Striking with a Bow is an activity that includes a Strike and a Reload not allow the Monastic Archer Monk to Flurry of Blows with it? Do you disallow a Hasted Archer from Striking with their bow? Both of these cases require an unmodified basic Strike rather than an Activity that includes a Strike.
I think it is pretty obvious that Paizo does not intend for a Strike with a reload 0 weapon to be simply an activity that includes a reload, it is a separate case with different rules.
Darksol I don't think you're using the Too Good To Be True guideline correctly. It is referring to too good in a holistic sense, not one facet of one rule being less affected by a niche case than a feat that does superficially similar things. If you're trying to argue that Reload 0 weapons should be held to the same standard as Quick Draw then why not make them require a feat? Or make it a defined activity that cannot be used with things like Flurry of Blows or Haste? Quick Draw and Reload 0 are entirely different things and they don't need to be, and shouldn't be, balanced by comparing each facet of them against each other any more than other aspects of the rules should be. It's absurd.
A reading of the rules is Too Good To Be True when it is actually unbalanced, not when it is simply inconsistent. The worst you could say about reload 0 weapons dodging an AoO disruption is that it is inconsistent in a simulationist sense. Dodging such a niche penalty (that is likely not even intended given it would invalidate Mobile Shot Stance) is a far cry from too good to be true.
Also, could you please stop strawmanning everyone who disagrees with you as people that are just calling your playstyle badwrongfun? Play how you want, most people here who disagree with you are arguing against your interpretation of the rules, not how you run them.
The Raven Black wrote:
Just a reminder that people tend to hate on skill uses that seem to be feat-gated. To the point that they misread feats as saying you cannot do this or that without the skill, whereas the feat merely allows a more efficient approach. This was already the case in PF1 and PF2 inherited them.
I think people want more feats that aren't really within the normal purview of a skill but enable a play style, like Bon Mot, which I haven't seen much griping about.
Correction on True Target, you say in your guide that it allows you to effectively share True Strike with a single friend, but it actually allows you to share it with up to four creatures!
You already rated it blue at 1/4 the strength, is there perhaps an even bluer blue? Pretty funny that it's still top tier even when nerfed so much.
On another note not specific to Wizards, but what am I not getting about Visions of Danger? I saw that you rated it as Orange. It seems like an absurdly powerful spell to me, but I always see it (and the Occult list) lowly rated in terms of damage. It is near guaranteed to do 16d8 mental damage (basic save obviously, but usually it will hit twice as you say in your guide) in a 30-foot burst, and can easily do more than that if you can combo it or block a hallway with your frontline (centering it 25 ft back from the front most enemy so they have to cross like 55ft to get out of it without tumbling or shoving the party). This is on average more damage than 7th level Chain Lightning WITH Dangerous Sorcery, and a creature crit succeeding only has like a 50/50 chance of ending it for themselves rather than guaranteed ending the Chain Lightning.
Assuming Halcyon Speaker to cast it as Arcane so you get a good DC, Wizard even gets convincing illusion to make disbelieving it even less likely for elite enemies. This is also just the damaging effects, it is still an illusion of a swarm of creatures. If your opponents don't recognise the spell or disbelieve it then they don't really have a great reason to think the swarm won't follow them if they try to leave. Obviously many will still gtfo but I'd be surprised if they don't try to kill the "swarm" they think is attacking them with any AoE they have, I'm sure players would do that if they were unfamiliar with the spell.
Honestly trying to figure out if I'm missing a major downside to this.
Looking to the future, has anyone thought about using the Overwatch Dedication + Vigilant Eye Diviner focus spell to get huge scouting capabilities? See around a corner within 60ft and then cast the diviner focus spell within your line of sight (but not necessarily your line of effect, as per clairvoyance) a few hundred feet away. If you see an encounter, maybe summon a Wandering Monster to send at the NPC's party for a change! Mind, you'd still have to summon it within your line of effect and tell it to go fight those enemies within the minute it sticks around. Dragons would be fast enough to do this kind of thing though. Might be worth softening them up before your main party hits them, preferably after any buffs they cast have run out.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
My conclusion for P2 is based on recorded numbers.
? Is this white room maths or your experience? Is this a representative sample of optimal play? You seem extremely confident that you have the Objective Truth of how good Wizards are at low level, why is that? If all you're doing is accurately recording what's happened in your games then I'm sorry but all you've done is made it less likely that your personal biases are affecting your conclusions, your group's style of play and GMs are still going to prevent your data from being representative. Sorry if I've made incorrect assumptions about how you've collected your data, but unless you've been sampling different games then I don't see this as particularly useful for drawing conclusions on how balanced the game is in general. You can definitely draw meaningful conclusions about your group though.
Regardless, let's assume you're correct and martials are no more effective than casters at lower levels. We're now looking at basically two ways of playing casters at low levels effectively: supporting martials with magic weapon and similar spells, or playing a sort of gish. Many people (including myself) would strongly prefer more options than that.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Once you accept this paradigm change and build accordingly, you find the low level caster is on par with the low level martial.
That may be your experience, it hasn't been mine. I am actually already aware that they have only slightly worse to hit levels 1-5, I just came to a different conclusion than you on their effectiveness.
I mean I definitely think there is a problem with the mechanical performance of the class, it's just at low levels (1-7ish) and it affects most other casters, and a lot of people like it because it's traditional to the genre. I'd say Wizards are affected more due to having less power in their chassis vs. spells, but I may be wrong.
Some people don't have an issue with this as it is sort of tradition, but I would have preferred if martials and casters were more balanced in the early game and late game rather than martials starting stronger and then switching around for the later levels when high HP and exotic challenges makes damage less effective than control and versatility (broad strokes, I know). In the early levels you get less spells and they do less, it only makes sense that a class that relies on their spells more will be less powerful than those that rely on their abilities/chassis, like Bards/Druids.
I think if you go back to those Wizard hate threads you'll find that many of its detractors were already talking about the first half of the levelling experience, if only because that's what most people had played earlier into the game's life.
Personally, even if the early levels are actually balanced, I think bland and balanced is a much worse problem than interesting but underpowered. It is a lot easier (and quicker) to buff an interesting class than it is to add a variety of interesting but balanced feats/features.
Leomund "Leo" Velinznrarikovich wrote:
It is so heartening to see the posts in this thread. Having been a staunch defender during the 'wizards are terrible' threads a year or so back, it is awesome to see wizards being recognized for their strengths.
You're happy people think they're bland and weak early, but bland and balanced mid to late levels? Doesn't seem like a win for Wizards to me. Especially given we're post-Secrets of Magic, where people had hoped (and argued that) the interesting feats would come.
I don't think it's worth an errata, I just think it would have been a slightly better item if it had released with a more accurate handedness requirement. Some of those other items would be better (to my eye) if they were less gamified in some respects as well.
Also, with your slightly weird psych assessment of my thought process have you considered that you're also in this thread writing essays in defence of the ball item?
No, but none of those have a common usage the requires less or more than their Usage entry. None of my players have tried to manacle someone using one/no hands yet and I doubt I'd let them without a good argument (or I guess if the target is unconscious? still seems very tricky with old fashioned manacles.) I haven't looked through the handedness of every item but I would say I'd prefer their handedness to correlate to their common usages/flavour if at all possible.
I mean it wouldn't matter in practice if something like Rations had Hands 2 or something, but I feel ever so slightly better about the item accurately depicting what it is. That is to say that you can eat Rations with 1 hand. If it had Hands 2 as an entry I would feel the same way about that as I do about the Ball, which is to say I find it slightly annoying as it doesn't match up with my mental image of ways to use a ball (i.e. kneeing it, kicking it, etc.)
All I'm arguing here is that this item would have been better if it didn't have a Hands/Usage entry, or if it must then have it be 0+ hands to more accurately represent all the different kinds of balls.
Remember kids, hacky sacks don't require a hand to use! Let us hacky sack with our greatswords out Paizo, it's what the people want!
I don't think that's a very fair characterisation of my point. Sure, we houserule stuff all the time, but usually it isn't very simple things directly against the usage section of the item. I'm not saying it's a huge issue I'm just saying I'd prefer it not to be there. Like if Stick was an item with "Usage 1 hand" it's not like it'd change anything, it'd just be like... why? You could respond to that criticism with "but of course you can use a stick with two hands! You're taking it too literally!" but my problem is that it's inaccurate and unnecessary, not that it's a pain to ignore (because it isn't). Just because everyone sane would rule it that way doesn't mean it isn't technically a houserule.