Eranex

Djinn71's page

316 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:
Errenor wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Better than a shield cantrip, even if you don't block with either.
But also Shield cantrip almost never provokes AoO. But both Stone shield and element restoration does.
it also gives +2 to fort saves and +2 to your fort DC's

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

If it's actually underpowered then it can be buffed without a compromise. There is no need for tradeoffs unless it actually eclipses existing classes in power/versatility beyond its intended niche.

These "compromises" instead of buffs are what killed the Witch.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Djinn71 wrote:

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.

I believe you're misreading it, unless you've seen clear adjudication to the contrary. It says that you must be holding an implement (actually, it says this twice - first by fundamental requirement of the action described initially and later by outright declaration) and then it limits you to holding nothing else outside of the following set:

- a single one-handed weapon
- other implements
- esoterica

If you have a weapon implement and a regalia implement (which is a weapon) then you are holding one implement and another implement, and need not dip into your "single one-handed weapon" allowance at all.

On the other hand, while that's important for certain areas of thaumaturge balance, it doesn't actually speak one way or the other to whether you can make implements that are not weapon implements out of weapons, as it would work equally well with a weapon implement and a non-implement weapon - either both work (by my interpretation) or neither do (by yours)

Which leads to another question: What if your regalia implement is a two-handed sword? What if it's a crossbow? Technically, by the rules as I can read them, that would still work.

note here that I'm not particularly happy about this conclusion. I don't want this to be the right answer. If I had to lay a guess on the rules as intended, I would guess that this was not intended... but I'm not seeing anything in the actual rules that in any way...

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

Assuming the enemy fails a will save, sure. Command needs to land and the AoO needs to land. Temporal Twin just needs to land once. It also still works against mindless enemies.

The 1 day immunity just means it is a betrer spell for a prepared caster who prepares it once a day. And the basic strike thing is fine. Barbarians and non-flurry rangers tend to default to basic strikes since they don't get many specialized strike actions like the fighter. So do Thaumaturges and Champions.

The only real downside is it uses the reaction, and most martials should really have a good reaction by this point... But the thing is you usually only trigger one AoO in a fight anyway, because once the enemy sees you use it they won't trigger it.

It isn't an auto pick spell but it has legs with the right party for sure.

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!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

A real weapon as an implement that is not Weapon implement seems OK by RAW.

Nothing prevents an implement from being useful in ways other than being an implement.

It allows for dual-weapon warrior shenanigans, though, which are otherwise impossible... and it seems to do so while still giving the implement boost to damage in both cases. That sounds like it's getting a bit beefier than it should be.

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.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Martialmasters wrote:

This again?

This is not a flaw in the system. But a point of balance. Casters are not meant to be on the level of dedicated damaging martials.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blave wrote:

1. Get Quick Draw from an archetype (Duelist, Rogue or Ranger).

2. Have MANY Greatswords on your back.
3. Drop your weapon when you need to use an Implement.
4. Quick Draw another Greatsword to attack.

That's the best I can come up with, and it still sucks. It's like asking "What's the best way to make a dagger-wielding barbarian?" Just even worse.

You only get to free draw an implement when you're replacing an implement you're already holding, so this is still pretty rough.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Notably if you treat combination weapons the way Darksol proposes then that would mean Gunslingers are legendary in the melee attacks of a combination weapon, which is obviously untrue.

How I wish drifters got that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LordeAlvenaharr wrote:

"When you Strike, you can trace mystic

patterns with an implement you’re holding to empower
the Strike, causing it to deal 2 additional damage per
weapon damage die."
This excerpt is from the book, this last part made me doubt...

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"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
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.

Guntermench wrote:
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!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Guntermench wrote:
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?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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."
Why would it need to say this if it was assumed that any form of Stunned would cause you to be entirely unable to act in any way while you have the condition?

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:

Now we will have a really efficient blaster spellcaster.

Fiery Body additional dice (now a + 1d10 due amp) and reducing the actions need to cast Produce Flame to 1-action + Unleash Psyche bonus damage + Shadow Signet can be very devastating.

My only doubt is if the char can still use Amps freely while unleashed or if is now always use a focus spell.

Oh! And now we have an official way to cast a cold damage Meteor Comet Swarm. Maybe now cast it as a Wish can be more acceptable to some people. kkkkk

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).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alfa/Polaris wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
It's a feature of the amp trait to make sure you don't have too much fun.
I'm not sure if they realized that they have a math-fixer item for spell attacks that's just metamagic. So that's a little rough. Only relevant at Lv 10 and later for now, at least.

That's the woes of trying to fix system wide problems with a clunky math fixing item I guess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alchemic_Genius wrote:
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."


4 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Background" is general enough to cover everything, Skeletons and all. Problem is it's already in use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

An effect, singular. A cold-based Meteor Swarm is a bunch of effects and as such you can't do it with Wish.

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."

AlastarOG wrote:

If you want to play a mage that can design spells on the flyz may I suggest Mage: The awakening? It's a great system that helps you set will to power in a typical mage way.

But for pf2e every houserule (because that is what that is) has to be weighed carefully and can expose you to Gm regret after.

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:
Arcaian wrote:
But this is clearly different - Wish allows you to create an effect that has a "power level in line with an arcane spell of 9th level or lower". The question here is "does Meteor Swarm, but dealing cold not fire damage, have a power level in line with 9th level arcane spells" - if you answer yes, you have to be saying that the cold damage is the source of the increase in power level; the flexibility is being paid for by the 10th level spell slot.

You are forgetting that the flexibility already lies in being able to cast any arcane spell other then another 10th level spell, and on top of that any spell up to 7th level of spell lists you don't even have access to otherwise.

Now bending and twisting those spells on top of getting access to them in the first place may be more flexibility then the 10th level slot pays for.

The original question is: 'If in all the spells accessible by Wish, a player does find many that are a solution for the problem at hand, but not the ideal/optimal solution, is allowing the player to further bend and twist a spell to 'optimise' it covered by the Wish spell's power or not.'

Ultimately, every GM has to answer that for themselves, but I will say again, if only casters get to play that game, you are back at creating a caster/martial imbalance that PF2 tries so hard to avoid.

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.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

"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.
- Duplicate any non-arcane spell of 7th level or lower.
- Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects.
- Reverse certain effects that refer to the wish spell.

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?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:

Has anyone mentioned the value of RK checks yet in this thread?

Asking because, in our AoA game, my party just did two relatively challenging fights back to back that we were able to break into much more manageable chunks thanks to RK checks. Spoilering just in case. ** spoiler omitted **

It made us all feel really good to handle a difficult encounter like that relatively easily because we planned ahead and did our homework. Granted, APs don't always give you opportunities to do that.

The actual power of the RK action (which normally involves a player attempting to recall a specific piece of knowledge, and then the first line of each success says get that knowledge) short circuits people for whatever reason so some people use Creature Identification and only Creature Identification, even if they already know what the creature is.

That's because the RK rules are vague, ambiguous and confusing. Could be much improved.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:

Has anyone mentioned the value of RK checks yet in this thread?

Asking because, in our AoA game, my party just did two relatively challenging fights back to back that we were able to break into much more manageable chunks thanks to RK checks. Spoilering just in case. ** spoiler omitted **

It made us all feel really good to handle a difficult encounter like that relatively easily because we planned ahead and did our homework. Granted, APs don't always give you opportunities to do that.

Recall Knowledge is extremely GM dependent as the base rules for it are rather bad.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

It could be, in theory, but the momentum of the evidence largely goes in the other direction, the substance matters more than the structure-- in other words, you can figure it out based on the presentation of actual evidence, rather than simply accepting the idea that the trope can mirrored uncritically.

I don't get invested in other people's levels of personal validation in the context of debates like this-- if the best you can say for your opinion is that literally no one can force you not to have it, that isn't worth a lot to me, so that part of your post is kind of orthogonal to the discussion of whether there's a problem and whether additional playtests can fix it. Its not about the person who holds the view and their right to hold it, its about the Validity and Soundness of their arguments, as supporting the truth of the arguments they're trying to advance.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

One interesting thing I was watching a video on recently, is the fact that people tend to accept that something is true the more often it is repeated-- essentially the feeling of recognition can become the feeling of credibility.

They've done studies where information people either aren't sure is true, or know is false, is repeated across a couple of days-- and all kinds of information, including both the information the people knew wasn't true, and the information that they aren't sure is true, became accepted as true more easily through repeated exposure.

One knock on effect is that if someone has a strongly held belief, say about a given class being over or under powered, and they repeat it, people are going to start believing it, even if the evidence wasn't sufficient to convince them when they first heard it and hasn't actually increased in the intervening time, it can serve to manufacture support and consensus where none exists.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaulin wrote:
Ah you're right. That's extremely stupid and I dislike that.

And in addition to that, falling is forced movement and forced movement can never trigger reactions based on movement.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AlastarOG wrote:
egindar wrote:

The horse's Support benefit does say "damage dice" rather than "weapon damage dice," as other effects that determine their bonuses based only on the number of dice from the weapon and its Striking rune normally do.

The horse's Support benefit is written unusually loosely in general, though, and I'd consider it fairly normal for a GM to rule that it applies to one or more of 1) Strikes only, 2) melee only, and 3) weapon damage dice only, and I suspect errata will eventually apply all three of those conditions to it at once.

Edit: Other features that add bonuses based on weapon damage dice, such as Dread Marshal Stance or the Forceful weapon trait, unambiguously do not stack with features that add weapon damage dice, such as Power Attack, Grievous Blow, or the Fatal weapon trait, to echo what others in here have said already. My comment is more about the horse Support benefit in particular than the general case.

All of these are trumped by the broad rule that states:

Effects based on a weapon’s number of damage dice include only the weapon’s damage die plus any extra dice from a striking rune

There is no ambiguity here. GM's might rule otherwisez but I don't see why they would because it is very clear cut.

Source: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=226

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:
"Your horse adds momentum to your charge. Until the start of your next turn, if you moved at least 10 feet on the action before your attack, add a circumstance bonus to damage to that attack equal to twice the number of damage dice. "

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Thezzaruz wrote:
I expect it to be the latter as otherwise that "0" means nothing and also a whole host of other rules break down.

Literally nothing breaks down, don't be melodramatic.

Quote:
It isn't unrelated though, it's the whole ball game. If "Reload 0" means "Strike and Interact" then archery simply doesn't work anymore.

This is just flatly untrue. For the most part, almost nothing changes between either interpretation, except that reactions that activate on manipulate/interact activate for one and not for the other.

This is a very low stakes debate, trying to pretend the game breaks down somehow one way or the other is silly.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
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.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
Djinn71 wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Mounted? Goblin + Independent Familiar? Guiding Luck? Or your GM gives you a high amount of Hero Points?
What does Goblin + Independent Familiar do to help action economy?

Indipendent > Stride ( ending close to the goblin, or the one with adopted heritage goblin + goblin scuttle ) > Goblin Scuttle.

By lvl 9 scuttle gives the possibility to stride for half speed ( mostly, 40 > 20 ).

Oh, that's pretty decent.

SuperBidi wrote:

If I use Fire Ray, then the Magus suddenly jumps at 20-30% extra damage. And if I decide to use a True Strike on my first attack, the Ranger is left alone in the dust.

In my opinion, it's not much melee Maguses but other ranged characters that should be worried about Starlit Span. I change my mind about it, Raven Black, maybe it would be more balanced if it was only available while in Arcane Cascade. I didn't realize how strong it is as is.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

I am with Leomund here. It's a massive win that people are admitting their problem isn't with the mechanical performance of the class but with that they aren't into what it can do.

Just like I find some classes to be "bland" and that in no way should affect the way the class is designed because making me interested in it would almost definitely cause people currently interested in it to lose interest, people that think "wizard is bland" should not be counted as a reason to significantly alter the design going forward because there are already folks (me as an example) that think it's one of the most interesting classes in the game.

There's a point at which a person is bored not because there's nothing interesting for them to do, but because they are boring them self.

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.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

1 to 50 of 186 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>