After some actual play, the only thing that i would say it is actually overpowered is Wings of Air. Permanent fly for oneself at 8 and then for the party at 14 is too much. I would make it so it has a 1 hour CD at level 8, then becomes just permanent at 14 (no need to use the actions, like, whats the point anyway) and then a 1 hour CD for allies. Baing able to refresh it out of combat every 5 minutes or so and starting every combat with its effects is stupid.
Does it need a full hour cooldown? I'm pretty sure I saw other Impulses that had a 10 minute cooldown that only started after the Impulse ended, might be a good compromise for Wings of Air that brings it in line with Focus Spells.
Just bringing it down to once every other ten minutes really restricts it, simply because you cannot assume it will be active at the start of combat.
By rules those are technically already the same thing:
Core Rulebook pg. 448 wrote:
Sometimes you'll need to know your DC for a given saving throw. The DC for a saving throw is 10 + the total modifier for that saving throw.
I assume it's just reminder text in this case.
If too much damage at long range is a worry then maybe it's time for a new trait that changes the damage dice at closer ranges.
Like "Focused d6: This ranged weapon is more effective at closer distances. Your attacks against targets that are within half of its first range increment changes its weapon damage die to the indicated value. This change applies to all the weapon's damage dice, such as those from striking runes."
Or the inverse if that is better, lowering damage at higher ranges instead of taking a range penalty.
My question is why does it need to be less accurate than other martials at only levels 1-4 (assuming that proficiency scaling is an error), 10-14, and level 20? What's so much weaker about its other features at 5-9 and 15-19 that it's suddenly balanced for this class to equal other martials? Is this class so OP for half of its career that it needs to take a -1 malus to hit for the other half? Is that even good design, for it to be relatively weaker at some levels so it can be stronger at others, what justifies this?
Also, what apex item is a Kineticist choosing? If you want to use your AoE save abilities and to not be at -1 to your DC compared to spellcasters, and -3(!) from level 19, then you have to choose Constitution. But if you don't choose Dex/Str then that puts you at -1 to hit compared to martials from 17-19 which goes to -2 to hit at level 20! Those are not trivial gaps.
Maybe as a compromise Kineticists should be allowed to choose any physical key ability score, but regardless their class DC still scales off of Constitution. So if you want to be Striking all day then you can pick Str or Dex, but if you want to be dropping that AoE like it's hot (or cold) then you can choose to focus on Constitution.
How I wish Monks had a feature in their chassis that gave them an action to raise their guard, which occupies a hand, giving +2 AC and a feat to enhance it and allow Shield Blocking. I despise the fact that Monks that don't use shields are leaving AC on the table that only costs 2gp to grab, and interferes with almost nothing they do except their aesthetic.
Also, as some have said above, why do they allow the core feature, and damage booster, of the Monk to be poached by the archetype? A Human can grab multi-talented at 9th and then grab Flurry of Blows at 10th.
Too late now, but this and the Champion Reaction should have been guarded a little better IMO.
It's pretty simple, are you holding more than a single one-handed weapon? If yes then no implement's empowerment for you. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is no rule that says stuff can't be two things. Just because you're treating a sword as a Regalia implement doesn't mean it stops being a one-handed weapon.
This line: "You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica" means that if you hold more than one (1) one-handed weapon you no longer qualify for implement's empowerment, no ambiguity. Yes the Regalia weapon is "other implements", but that does not stop it from being a second one-handed weapon. It doesn't get through by satisfying just one requirement, it also needs to not violate the single one-handed weapon restriction.
Yep, this is the one. The only real problem with this build is that you need to waste a feat on Repeating Hand Crossbow proficiency at 4 to get out of Drow Shootist.
You can use stuff like Divine Disharmony to inflict flat-footed at ranged and Cursed Effigy to give them a penalty to saves against your Wand.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Probably better in a party with an Archer Fighter, especially if your GM disallows ranged Aid actions (which I've seen some do).
Also, really good in a party with an Opportune Backstab Rogue with Prep, assuming your GM allows the temporal twin of your rogue to count as an ally to the rogue. Hilarious imagery as well, get backstabbed by a clone of the Rogue you're fighting, get distracted and then get stabbed in the back again by the same damn rogue, with flanking and sneak attack!
Thaumaturge in Free Archetype with Drow Shootist 2/4/6, then Archer Dedication + Crossbow Terror at 8th to amp a simple Hand Crossbow, which is your Weapon implement. Use a Wand implement in your other hand. Reloading Strike means you can make at least one shot a round with the Hand Crossbow using only one action.
Routine with a +1 Striking Flaming Hand Crossbow looks like 2d8+1d6+8 (you get +2 additional per weapon damage die, +2 Circumstance from Crossbow Terror, and +2 additional from weapon specialization) + Exploit Weakness, followed (or preceded) by Fling Magic with a basic save for 5d6+4 and potentially flat-footed, persistent damage, or reduced speed. Then add Energized Cartridge from Talisman Esoterica and you can get some really solid DPR if you ever get the chance to target multiple weaknesses at once.
True, but you only need Moderate bombs until level 11, and they're only 10gp a pop. Gunslinger's Advanced Alchemy is better than the Alchemist Dedication's as well, giving you level -3 instead of level -5. Quick Draw is just a better Quick Bomb as well. You do miss out on Quick Alchemy though, which is pretty useful for Thaumaturge to trigger multiple weaknesses. If you have a truly absurd amount of time for retraining then going Alchemist first would be a better levelling experience for sure.
With how bombs interact with Exploit Weakness (triggering it on a miss) they're still pretty solid even when you're a die behind Striking runes at level 12 and 13.
You still don't get implement's empowerment if you're wielding two weapons.
"You don't gain the benefit of implement's empowerment if you are holding anything in either hand other than a single one-handed weapon, other implements, or esoterica, and you must be holding at least one implement to gain the benefit."
If you have a Sword Regalia implement and a Sword Weapon implement you are holding more than "a single one-handed weapon", and the fact that you're also holding "other implements" is irrelevant to that violation as they're still weapons.
Not really abusing the "weapon as an implement" stuff, but I'm currently planning a bomb using Thaumaturge that has Regalia in one hand and a Bladed Gauntlet as a weapon implement, with a Gunslinger dedication for Quick Draw and Munitions Crafter. Free-hand should allow me to quickdraw the Bombs while still applying implement's empowerment, and still allowing weapon reaction. It's going to be a bit pricey getting bombs in the earlier levels, but until level ~3-4ish I'll probably rely more on a Rapier or a gun or something.
I wish they'd just let us have the option to choose a physical stat for classes like these. It's obviously balanced because for 10 levels you have equal stats to normal martials like Rogue and Barbarian. From levels 5-9, 15-19 you can have an identical Strength bonus if you want.
Also opens build variety, I know some builds would still max Cha for social skills and Esoteric Lore, and I'd be fine if Cha was still tied to the class DC. I just hate these pointless gaps for half the levels.
I'm getting pretty sick of this strawman. People that are complaining specifically about attack roll spells just want them to be on par with save spells. If save spells do less damage than martials, then logically people who want attack roll spells to do equivalent damage to save spells want them to do less damage than martials.
The fact that they're "balanced" by clunky things like True Strike and Shadow Signet is part of the problem by the way.
You only get to free draw an implement when you're replacing an implement you're already holding, so this is still pretty rough.
Deadly doesn't work that way. You only get 1d10 on a crit.
Have you read the deadly trait? Maybe look up the rule before correcting someone...
"On a critical hit, the weapon adds a weapon damage die of the listed size. Roll this after doubling the weapon's damage. This increases to two dice if the weapon has a greater striking rune and three dice if the weapon has a major striking rune."
It'd be nice if Fatal was just errata'd so that it also scales into the late game, when all the HP gets inflated.
Would this not lead to you holding the Wand or Regalia to get the damage boost? Not seeing why any Thaumaturge would fight with both hands free...
Unarmed attacks still have weapon damage die, go and look at Handwraps of Mighty Blows, they refer to weapon damage dice.
"For example, +1 striking handwraps of mighty blows would give you a +1 item bonus to attack rolls with your unarmed attacks and increase the damage of your unarmed attacks from one weapon die to two"
Just that, on average, they seem on par with martials.
I really wish that average was distributed a little more evenly across level 1-20. The early game for a lot of casters can be miserable, because as you level not only do you get way more spells, but they have greater effects even against on level, and above level, enemies. And you have to deal with things like not hitting the AC cap natively until level 15 when you get 20 dex... Really wish, for example, that a spell like Mage Armour meaningfully helped with that by giving you a +2 item bonus/+3 dex cap.
Personally I just stopped playing casters from level 1-~8ish, but maybe the Psychic will change that.
The fan allows you to "Activate the fan to cast a cantrip you've gained from a heritage or ancestry feat" using your class DC, which in this case would be Thaumaturge.
Cursed Effigy: "As long as you are Exploiting Vulnerability against that creature, it takes a –2 status penalty to its saving throws against thaumaturge abilities or items that use your thaumaturge class DC."
In this case Electric Arc would be cast from an item that uses your thaumaturge DC, so the enemy would take a -2 penalty to saves against it.
Obviously you would still need to do damage with a physical Strike. Are people generally ruling that ranged works for that by the way? Seems weird given it says "After your attack, you grab a bit of blood, cut hair, or other piece of the creature’s body." But it's true the requirements don't say anything about a melee Strike.
It's kind of vague, it requires an interact action to activate it and there is a PFS note saying it's a held item but depends on your GM I guess.
Adopted Ancestry should get you whatever cantrips you need I think, but luckily the best cantrip is baked into a Tengu heritage.
Cursed Effigy should work on the Tengu Feather Fan to let you give debuffs to the save against Electric Arc (or whatever cantrip you can get from a Heritage or Ancestry Feat) as it is technically coming from an item using your Thaumaturge Class DC. Might be difficult to fit in if you can't use it as an implement (maybe Regalia or even Wand would work? Regalia is probably the closest) but cool regardless.
Just because some reactions call out disrupting doesn't mean that this is the only way to change the effect of an action, although some seem to have made an exception for this wording when it comes to Strides. Why? Sure movement reactions are triggered per square, but why are you taking that as precedent for move related triggers when you won't for other triggers? Nimble dodge allows for a reaction triggered by being targeted by an observed Strike and can alter the course of that Strike (even making it do nothing if it causes it to miss!) without mentioning the magical "disrupt" word.
Disrupt entirely cancels and action, which is not what the suggested readied actions actually do.
For example, suppose a cowardly Archer shot a Barbarian and then readied an action to flee if they tried to cut them down. This Barbarian uses Sudden Charge to close and Strike, causing the Archer to flee. This is not a disruption of the Strike, and to show why the Barbarian will now use their own reaction: No Escape. The foe tries to avoid the attack but ends up still in reach, so the Strike continues.
The same thing happens if a foe readies a Step instead of a Stride to avoid an AoO but is targeted by a reach weapon, they were outplayed. If they had actually disrupted the triggering action then it'd be stopped regardless, instead they merely changed the situation and not enough to avoid their fate.
Another fun one is someone with 4th level Silence cast on them readying an action to Stride next to a caster that tries to cast a Spell. Obviously a lot of these tactics will be telegraphed by a character only taking 1 action on their turn, although I'll admit that against mindless enemies these tactics could be abusable. That's already the case with a lot of tactics however, and is kind of the fatal flaw of creatures like Golems and other constructs. Still, the idea of PCs straight up outmaneuvering all foes with these tactics strikes me as some white room stuff that wouldn't work in a real situation with terrain and surprises.
While some are against this for balance reasons (although the 2-action + reaction cost, + possibility of it not being triggered really allay that concern for me), I thought of a fun interaction. If you designated 'I am targeted by a Strike' as your trigger then it is entirely reasonable for a feint to trigger your reaction. Feints in general are also a good argument that the beginning of a Strike (before it lands) is a plausible observable trigger.
Forewarning, I haven't played with anyone using these tactics as a player or GM, but it sounds fun to me!
Captain Morgan wrote:
Having reviewed this finally, I do think you had room to make this less deadly. One glaring moment for me: requiring the sorcerer to use an action for a Medicine check to tell how close the enemy is to dying. That isn't the in the rules. Personally, since I switched to VTTs I just display enemy health bars. No numbers, but either a bar or some sort of mod that says whether a creature is badly injured, near death, etc. Wounds should be visible apparent, and while creatures mechanically don't get worn out as their HP approaches zero in narrative they should be looking worse for wear.
I may have a problem with too many modules... but have you looked at the Health Estimate module? It displays a description above tokens based on their current HP, with things like "Barely Wounded", "Wounded" and "Near Death". It's completely customizable and also has a colour gradient (default green = healthy, dark red = dying).
Only problem I've had with it is that it doesn't use the vehicle options ("Damaged" instead of "Wounded") for Constructs, which would be really nice!
Even for Readying an action to drink Time Shield potion, if the trigger was the Strike, then I would still have the Strike be resolved before the potion takes effect, because the Strike doesn't get disrupted. If the trigger was the enemy Stride to be within range of an attack, then the potion would take effect before the enemy's action to Strike. But that also means that the action can be used for something else instead of Strike.
And if the trigger wasn't a Strike, but being targeted by a Strike (as Nimble Dodge shows is very likely an allowable trigger, being something observable), what then? We know from existing reactions that you can apply an effect DURING an action that has triggered a reaction (+2 AC in Nimble Dodge's case) and that the effect of the reaction can change the course of the triggering action WITHOUT disrupting it (and with no special wording like "immediately", as Reactive Shield Block has). So why not in the case of a readied Stride? Or a Readied Trip in response to a Stride action? It seems to me that by RAW and RAI what should be done in this situation is to apply the effects of the Readied action and see how that affects the triggering action.
Note that in these cases the creature's action wasn't any more "Disrupted" than if you shield blocked all of a Strike's damage. The attack still happened, it's just that your reaction changed the effects of it.
Nimble Roll, which builds on Nimble Dodge and lets you move away, doesn't stop the attack it just lets you move after it. I don't see why you would allow a player to have a better reaction than a level 8 feat for free at level 1.
I wouldn't call a reaction that requires two actions of setup (and forewarning) better than Nimble Dodge, certainly it would be used less in actual play! Is it balanced, then, that the power of two actions + a reaction takeable by a level 1 character is more powerful than Nimble Dodge? Yes, two regular Strikes are certainly more powerful than Nimble Dodge and they don't even cost you your reaction!
If you're Paralyzed on your turn, you can't use your actions, excepting mental only ones. Stunned is written the same way. Why is it different?
Because Stunned is explicitly mentioned in a callout box that says you don't lose your actions if you gain it during your turn: "Quickened, slowed, and stunned are the primary ways you can gain or lose actions on a turn. The rules for how this works appear on page 462. In brief, these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn; thus, gaining the condition in the middle of your turn doesn’t adjust your number of actions on that turn."
Given RAW doesn't work for either interpretation, and this obviously tells you RAI, why would you not follow it?
Is there a rule that requires the trigger you set to be the completion of an action? Looking at the advice from the gamemastery guide it seems to recommend against doing things in such a gameified way, and instead base the reaction on things the PC perceives in character. From this I would assume that you could ready an action with a trigger of "someone swings a weapon at me", or more accurately "someone tries to hurt me", and if they perceive that then their reaction would be triggered. I haven't seen a rule that requires the trigger to be a fully resolved action or anything, and indeed we know from precedent that reactions triggered by a Strike HITTING can have effects that turn that hit into a miss without disrupting the action.
Another example, Nimble Dodge has the trigger of "a creature targets you with an attack and you can see the attacker." so is there any rules support to denying a similar trigger for a readied action? As far as I know the only limitation on Ready triggers beyond what a normal reaction can have is just that it needs to be something the PC can observe and explain in in character terms, which you can with being targeted by a big weapon swing for example.
So you need the reaction to specifically say Disrupt? Or you need the action taken when the trigger happens to reasonably disrupt the triggering action? So if you had someone Ready an action to close a door if someone started to Stride towards them, you would fully resolve the Stride action because Ready doesn't specify Disrupt, or do you resolve the Ready and then apply any reasonable disruption to the triggering action?
I would expect the rules to allow for a Readied action to drink a Time Shield Potion when an enemies tries to Strike at you for example, but from what I'm reading you may disagree?
Some of this has been brought up already, but I'm putting all the rules text together to see if it at all makes sense if you run Stunned with a value as causing you to be unable to act.
Slowed says: "You have fewer actions. Slowed always includes a value. When you regain your actions at the start of your turn, reduce the number of actions you regain by your slowed value. Because slowed has its effect at the start of your turn, you don't immediately lose actions if you become slowed during your turn."
Stunned says:"You've become senseless. You can't act while stunned. Stunned usually includes a value, which indicates how many total actions you lose, possibly over multiple turns, from being stunned. Each time you regain actions (such as at the start of your turn), reduce the number you regain by your stunned value, then reduce your stunned value by the number of actions you lost."
It also says this about Stunned with a duration: "Stunned might also have a duration instead of a value, such as “stunned for 1 minute.” In this case, you lose all your actions for the listed duration."
CRB says: "Quickened, slowed, and stunned are the primary ways you can gain or lose actions on a turn. The rules for how this works appear on page 462. In brief, these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn; thus, gaining the condition in the middle of your turn doesn’t adjust your number of actions on that turn."
Can't act: "The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states that you can't act: this means you can't use any actions, or even speak. When you can't act, you don't regain your actions and reaction on your turn."
Putting this information together you can see that the rules are contradictory; if Stunned with a value actually means you cannot act then it will never end as you never regain actions to reduce it. The writer of the CRB also seems to assume that gaining Stunned on your turn would not restrict you from acting on that turn. This is just incoherent with the language of Stunned if "You can't act while stunned" is taken literally.
A more forgiving reading of the rules is that the Stunned condition first states you cannot act and then the rest of the condition clarifies exactly how you cannot act. For Stunned with a duration you cannot act period, for Stunned with a value you cannot act for the next X actions, but can both before and after those actions. It may also be true that Paizo wants Stunned to deny reactions between turns if rumours of that Youtube ruling are true (still haven't seen the video), if so this interpretation is also contradictory.
The RAW is nonsense for both interpretations, but I really cannot fathom that the RAI is that gaining stunned 1 during your turn is supposed to end it given the problems it causes and the way the writer of the CRB seems to think it works.
Ready also doesn't disrupt their action. So they do get to complete that first action that the monk reacted to.
So how would you run a readied action to trip someone triggered by a Stride? Would you wait to apply the effects of the trip until they'd completed their Stride action or would you apply it immediately and interrupt their Stride?
I don't have the PDF, but based on what others are saying you can't use Shadow Signet with an amped spell because it disallows metamagic unfortunately. Might still be worth it, but probably want to stick to save spells for Psychic generally (as usual without Shadow Signet).
That's the woes of trying to fix system wide problems with a clunky math fixing item I guess.
I'd see this maybe from a rune, but on a bomb, the persistent damage is part of the strike, so I'm not really sure that its so clear cut to say initial damage is the only part of that consists of the weapon's damage
I'm confused with this point, aren't the damage from runes part of the Strike in the same way as a bomb's? Mechanically they should work the same as bombs, except maybe for effects that specifically ask you to count Weapon Damage Dice (as you only use the base dice and Striking runes for that). I don't see any rules support for giving them separate rulings, if non-bomb persistent damage doesn't trigger it then bomb persistent damage also should not trigger it.
Here is the wording on Personal Antithesis btw:
"You improvise a custom weakness on a creature by forcefully presenting and empowering a piece of esoterica that repels it on an individual level; for instance, against a tyrant, you might procure a broken chain that once held a captive. This causes the target creature, and only the target creature, to gain a weakness against your unarmed and weapon Strikes equal to 2 + half your level."
I don't see anything stopping you from taking Assurance on Esoteric Lore right? If you want to dump Charisma, or just remove the chance of flat-footing yourself in an important boss fight against an already researched creature, this would basically make you guaranteed to fail the check against on level and higher enemies, but not crit fail it.
At level 7 and 8 you would actually succeed against on level foes, and you only ever crit fail versus creatures ~6+ levels above you.
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.