Easl's page

Easl wrote:

Oh great! Show me that rotation. I'd love to see it.

Sure thing:

Turn 1: Cycle of Souls -> Channeler's Stance -> earth's bile -> Apparition's Quickening -> 9th-rank hungry depths.

Turn 2: Elf Step (Sustaining earth's bile and hungry depths) -> 8th-rank invoke spirits from your apparition slots.

Turn 3: Elf Step (Sustaining two vessel/apparition spells) -> Maneuvering Spell (Sustaining the third spell) -> execute.

Thank you. So the animist's ability to sustain 3 and cast a fourth comes in at L18. I appreciate the info. I'm going to drop this line for now though because while it's a cool trick, I pretty much never play games to that level. Not criticising. Not disagreeing. Just moving on.

I have already provided you the comparison of the earth's bile + fireball Animist versus the ancestral memories + fireball Imperial Sorcerer

Okay so the animist strategy you want to compare to other builds is:

??

Or is it just skipping my round 2, and every round after the first is
RX A1 sustain earth's bile (probably with elf step). A2-3 Slot spell.

Gotta say, while the second option probably does better dpr, it's kinda less interesting because it doesn't really leverage the special tricks the animist can do. Many caster builds at L9 can do 1a focus + 2a slot though a 3 round combat.

Just to help you undesntand why I'm pushing on the focus spells, it's because in our first exchange (lately) roughly 6 hours ago, I responded to your comment to Deriven about Circle of Spirits providing access to two focus spells. So I naturally wanted to think through a build that uses circle of spirits to get out a second such spell, and see how effective that rotation could be. It sounds like we both agree that if the animist wants to go for high burst damage and is willing to drop slots spells on it, then that circle of spirits rotation is not the way to go - there are better ways the animist can pump out fast damage. Is that fair?

the {animist} class does end up able to outperform even an Elementalist thanks to their ability to Sustain three spells on the same turn that they cast a fourth,

Oh great! Show me that rotation. I'd love to see it.

What I am specifically referencing is that elemental toss only does something on two degrees of success, whereas save spells do something on three. There is very clearly a double standard at play when you cite differences in accuracy in order to downgrade the Animist's Strike damage, but are perfectly willing to ignore major differences in accuracy between spell attacks and save spells when listing the Elemental Sorcerer's damage,

Earth's bile and Fireball are both save spells. So whatever white room damage comparison we decide to do, we should do the same for both. Likewise, the animist's melee strike and elemental toss are both AC targeting, and do nothing on a miss, so we should treat those equivalently too. If you want to discount both the strikes and the elemental toss in the above calculation because they are AC targeting, we can do that. However you would still need to discount the animist's second strike by MAP to get an apples to apples comparison of expected damage.

I don't mean it as an insult, but I am certainly calling out dishonest argumentation here

it is an insult to continue to insist I'm being dishonest and saying my post is telling about my personal character when I'm just trying to figure out what this rotation specifically is and put numbers to it.

Lets try it this way instead: tell me what your depiction of this really cool elf step multi-sustain rotation is. R1 A1 is what. R1 A2 is what. etc... You tell me which vessel spells it uses. Then we can discuss that. Maybe it's the same as the three sustain, cast-a-fourth rotation you mention above, in which case we have only one case to discuss. But maybe it's not, and we have two cases. And that would be interesting too.

Oh, I'm sorry, was one of the most blast-oriented Sorcerer builds not enough for you? Why switch to the Elemental Sorcerer when the Imperial Sorcerer with a buffed focus spell was an equally valid comparison for level 9?

Fair to say, then, that the animist build you're dicussing does less than both types of sorcerer when no slots are used, compares nicely to the imperial when slots are used instead of strikes, but can't blast as well as a built-for-blasting caster?

Easl wrote:

The second strike has MAP. You're not factoring that into your calculation, you're instead treating it has having the same damage average as the first attack.

Hold up, that's not what I'm challenging here. I am specifically challenging your claim that I counted three attacks,

Then I probably just misspoke, saying 3 attacks when I should have said 3 actions. I agree, your build and rotation in the second round comprises 1 action for elf step/sustain and 2 strikes. No pivot intended.

Your concerns about MAP also appear to be greatly exaggerated when you've explicitly chosen not to factor in accuracy at all in your above Elemental Sorcerer math.

The elemental sorcerer uses one save spell and then one attack spell per round, so MAP is not a factor for them. Your animist does one save spell and two strikes in round 2, so MAP factors in to the damage estimate for their 2nd round total.

The fact that you have to resort to the most extreme example of a blaster caster in order to make the argument against the Animist's blasting power when another notorious blaster caster fell short is telling.

Well it sounds like you mean that to be an insult, but yes I will agree that the comparison is telling us something useful about the two builds. I'm not even implying the sorc is better here; no-slot 76 is fine, and I think many players would like that over 2-slot 127. Other players won't. [shrug] Personally, I don't draw 'animist = best caster' from that comparison. I don't draw elemental sorc = best caster' from it either. Instead, I draw something more like "there is no best, there are different flavors with different pros and cons." But if you do (draw 'best caster' from the comparison), so be it.

I think the fundamental tension in this whole discussion rests on two things:

1) The Animist is one of the most powerful casters in the game.
2) The Animist is one of the most complex classes in the game.

With the valdity of point 1 being contingent on your capacity to handle point 2.

The way I think of it is like Magus. You have Starspan Magus with Psychic dedication, using IW starting at L6. This is a very specific build. it is a very offensively powerful build. If someone were to argue that this build does more damage than Paizo wanted the power curve to do, I think that argument holds some water. OTOH if someone were to say that Magus is hands-down the best martial at all things martialing because this build exists, I think I'd have to disagree on that. Teridax has found a animist build that does good damage without slot resources, but it requires a specific ancestry selection, then a specific animist practice selection, at least two specific feat selections, and then a specific daily prep routine. And like starspan+IW it doesn't come online at all until mid level play (3 levels after starspan does). So if someone wants to argue that Paizo didn't anticipate the elf step etc. animist combo pumping out as much non-slot damage as it does, then like the Starspan, I'd say that argument holds water. But if someone were to argue that this combo means the animist class is the best caster at things casty...well, like a claim that this combo makes the magus the best martial at martialy, that seems a lot less credible to me.

I fully agree, which is why I produced a much more straightforward example of an Animist and Imperial Sorcerer both using three actions to blast across two turns, with the former using earth's bile and the latter using ancestral memories.

Ancestral memories is roughly +5% for the second round. A more direct comparison for L9 would be elemental toss. Using that and fireball would be: R1 (10d6+5)+(5d8+5) + R2 (8d6+4)+(5d8+5) = 127.

This compares to your own calculations for your animist build, which were 76 for non-slot use, and 99 with slot use.

Slight aside, but "76 no slot use" can be accomplished by a fire kineticist with just impulse junction blazing wave + d6 EB. Hail of splinters + wood EB, same. Retch Rust + metal EB, same. But the kin can do that all at 30', without melee involved. And they can do that through wave encounters where there's no time to recover focus points. So IMO Teridax's animist build isn't even OP in the "ahhh, but what can you do with no slot resources??" department - there it's just on par with several different not-the-maximized-fire-build kineticsts. But with the need for 20 minute recoveries between encounters which the kin doesn't have. :)

You're going to have to explain that rationale to me, because I'm only counting two attacks here. Elf Step to Sustain both spells and deal earth's bile damage in the process leaves you with two actions to make two Strikes. Because each Strike deals 2d10+9 damage, the total is 4d10+18.

The second strike has MAP. You're not factoring that into your calculation, you're instead treating it has having the same damage average as the first attack.

This whole calculation has a ton of simplifying assumptions, most notably that we are assuming AC and all saves are basically the same in each case and we are comparing average damage. Which is fine. But even with that simplifying assumption, you should generally count a MAP -5 attack as 25% less damage than the initial no-MAP attack. The sorc uses only one attack per round, so elemental toss doesn't suffer from MAP in either round while the Animist's second strike in the second round will average less than their first.

Could you please explain the reasoning that led you to combine the blast spell with the shifting spell, as opposed to, say, embodiment of battle and devouring dark form?

That's the spell I thought you were talking about. Feel free to chonge it to devouring dark form or embodiment of battle and recalculate.

Well, for starters, your math is completely wrong. You don't seem to have included elemental form's damage bonus

Fair. +9. And fair about the persistent, so +3 more there. It's still not as much.

and appear to have only included a single Strike

Second strike has MAP, so it counts less, and obviously the Animist may not choose to do that. If you want to count third action attacks for the animist, then we should add in witch hexes and things like force bolt on the other side. IOW, to do a fair comparison, you should compare 3a of animist attacks to 3a of alternative attacks not 2a.

+ 4d10 + 18

No that's assuming a 3rd action MAP attack hits, which both has a lower chance and is now comparing an animist's 3 actions all focused on damage dealing to a different caster's 2 actions focused on damage dealing. To give a fair comparison, you need to (1) *0.75 that 2d10+9 from the third action and (2) add in some expected damage from the alternative caster using their third action for some sort of attack (not necessarily a strike). Or, if you prefer, you can say for the second round you're going to compare animist 2a sustain and one strike vs. the generic caster's cast of a single 2a spell. Either is reasonable; "what my animist can do in 3a vs what some other class could do in 2a" is not.

I would like to thank you for this example, by the way, as it also helps debunk the notion that the Animist needs to be hyper-optimized around a specific playstyle to start getting too strong: as this shows, even a player who doesn't know what they're doing can easily end up outperforming alternatives.

YW, but IMO it shows no such thing. It shows that a very specific build played to a very specific tactic can do okay in a very specific context. A non-liturgist animist can't do your rotation. A non-elf animist can't do your rotation. A liturgist elf animist who didn't take elf step can't do your rotation. An animist that doesn't take Circle can't do your rotation. An animist below L9 can't do your rotation. An animist who doesn't walk around with Steward of Stone and Fire "up" can't do your rotation. So it's not the animist class in general that has any OPness. It is, at best, this one specific build that has OPness. And I'm not even sold on that because it gives away the first round in cantrip damage for the promise of better damage in later rounds, which is often a bad trade.

Circle of Spirits lets you easily use multiple vessel spells in the same encounter, so in fact you get two to four focus spells for free.

Teridax just so I understand the rotation you are suggesting, it is (premise: must be L9 or above for this to work. For this example, we will go with L9, rank 5 spells):

R1: A1 cast earth's bile for 3d4+3d4+3 (aoe) A2: Circle of Spirits to switch. A3: cast Darkened forest form.

R2: A1 elf step to sustain both (and get in melee range for strikes). Earth's bile does its damage. A2: strike in melee using darkened forest form. Wood elemental form, for instance, does 2d10 (single target). A3: MAP strike or other 1a action.

I'm failing to see how this is unbalanced. Any one of several full casters can R1: 2A 10d6 fireball, R2 8d6 fireball* = 18d6 (aoe) across the same two rounds the animist has done 12d4+3 (aoe) +2d10 (single target). The standard caster has almost doubled the animist's damage. What am I missing? Now, I get the idea that the Animist can do this strategy BUT ALSO defer it in favor of casting top rank spells instead. But that doesn't make them more powerful, because the standard caster could also 'flip the script' and use lower rank and focus spell casts to match the animist's ~33dpr rotation. Both PCs have the ability to say "I can do this, but I can also do many other things with my round instead" so I'm not necessarily seeing the animist as more flexible here. The ability to do a bit of standard casting and standard striking in the same combat is cool no doubt, but it's not leading to bigger numbers overall (an observation which is true for Summoner too).

*I'm assuming the "one top rank spell used per encounter" concept, and assuming the caster doesn't use their 1a for some other damaging effect. I'm also not counting class effects like sorcerous potency, because they vary by class and I'm sticking with 'generic caster' for this example. But all those things make the comparison worse for the animist.

I should point out that balance matters most in semi-optimised groups, not maximally-optimised groups.

This may be true, but semi-optimised groups by definition are not attempting to maximize dpr; they are at least somewhat valuing role play scenes and non-combat build/capability. So if you drop in an animist player who is trying to maximmize dpr, then of course they will outshine some of the others in combat. But that isn't an animist class issue, that is a player playstyle issue.

Paizo isn't going to outthink a dozen Derivens who play more games of PF2e in a month than the entire company can afford to do in a year, but they can (and need to) present a balanced case for the average 'I finished an AP in 1 year' group.

If you are comparing a L9+ animist maximized for longer combats, against a bunch of other PCs who fall into the 'balanced case for the average', then of course the animist is going to come out looking strong. If you want to talk average team, then you need to talk average animist. Which is not "always takes Liturgist + Elf + Elf step and then uses Earth's Bile + Darkened Forest Form, games always played at L9+, combats are always higher difficulty allowing tactics that take 2-3 rounds to set up to shine."

I dont see it as a systemic problem if we as players can dream up specific scenarios in which one class shines. Those are certainly out there (for many classes!). What matters for balance is class capabilities across a wide range of encounters, a wide range of builds, a wide range of levels, etc..

Search, Archives of Nethys: "focus cantrip"

Showing 0 of 0 results

So, I know they're introduced in the composition spells and hex spells sections of bard and witch, which are focus spells, and they're described in the focus spells section of the spells chapter of the book, but they're not called "focus cantrips" anywhere I could find. I feel like calling them that instead of what they're called in the books has the potential to cause more confusion and delay rather than relieve it. Just sayin'

Summoner also has link cantrips.

Yes it gose befor the other effects of the impulse but that is not what is in question. The Infusion happens befor you make a blast. It states if you take any action other then a blast the combination is lost. So there completely separate.

It sounds like you already have a conclusion in mind, and Paizo rarely gives answers, so I would just play it the way you've chosen in that case.

I doubt it will unbalance the game. We are talking about 5 points extra damage at L17. Also because kineticists have many ways to do higher damage for 2 actions. For example, at L6 your 'double bumped' 2d10 EB is doing 15 average damage to one target while using those two actions for blazing wave would average 22-23 to multiple.

Unofficially, I would lean towards "no" because the rules for impulse junction say "This happens before the other effects of the impulse, unless noted otherwise."

So in my mind, the order of operations is:
1. You select a 2a fire EB.
2. The junction increases the die size to d8 (this happens before any other effects).
3. As a free action you use Two Element Infusion to mix it with metal. This gives you 'best of both', so best of 30' or 60' and best of d8 or d8. Half the damage will be fire, the other half p or s.

To get to d10s you'd have to switch the order of steps 2 and 3, but then the impulse junction is going after everything else instead of before it.

Whether you think it's worth it is entirely up to you.

Most other forms of Fear-giving spells and abilities target only one enemy and give them a save. This one targets every enemy within 30', no save. It's also one action, whereas most spells (including the comparable focus spell Spiral of Horrors) are two. Being a one action cantrip, it doesn't need to be sustained because recasting it every round is exactly the same action cost as sustaining it would be.

Eh? I know only one AV game and it's a diabloid. Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Needless to say a diabloid is ... not helpful for testing TTRPG rules.

Unless of course there's a secret second AV game based on an actual PF2 game system and I didn't hear about it.

They've made at least two posts about it on the community blog page. Last one was October 20th, see "Tabletop to Hack and Slash - Level Design in BKOM’s Pathfinder: Abomination Vaults". And Happy Halloween!

Teridax why not try it yourself?

We live in an AI world now. Use prompt engineering to get ChatGPT to read all of the 2E part of AoN, plus whatever ttrpg sources you think are good examples of the modular design you want, then tell it to create a basic rules framework for a PF3E. You could probably get a first draft in the time it took you to write your last post. Three, four, five tweaks and iterations later, and you could conceivably have the mechanics of 3PP 3E system written in days. The company looks at 3PPs, so that could be a much better way to influence them than forum posts - "Paizo, bring me a rock" is nowhere near as compelling as "Paizo, here is a cool rock, what do you think?"

I think the confusion comes from my native language, when they translated

Quote:

A prepared spellcaster can heighten a spell by preparing it in a higher-rank slot than its normal spell rank, while a spontaneous spellcaster can heighten a spell by casting it using a higher-rank spell slot, so long as they know the spell at that rank (see Heightened Spontaneous Spells below).

the "they know the spell at that rank" can be understood in the plural and concerns both types of spellcaster.

Ah I see. Yes the "they know..." in that sentence refers to the Sorcerer only. The prepared caster just needs the spell in their spell book, and they can prepare it at any rank they want.

It is acceptable to trade stories of that crazy time when your pet wriggled out of it's leash and went wild on the appetizer table...just don't share that your pet is a human child.

Thank you for all your replies, yes I made a mistake in talking about sorcerers who are spontaneous spellcasters.

Enjoy playing your caster!

Wizard: puts Breath Fire as a R1 spell into their spellbook. During daily preparation, can prepare it as R1, and/or a R2, and/or a R3, etc... It is cast at exactly and only the rank(s) it is prepared at. The next day, redo your preparation choices any way you want.

Sorcerer, not a signature spell: adds Breath Fire to their repertoire as a R1 spell. May only cast it as a R1 spell. If they also want to cast it as a R3 spell, they need to add it to their repertoire a second time, as a separate R3 spell. Can only rearrange their repertoire with downtime or on leveling.

Sorcerer, signature spell: adds Breath Fire to their repertoire once, at any rank. May cast it at any rank.

This only applies when those weapons are being wielded by beings of roughly similar size and anatomy in one-on-one conditions. There's a reason combat sports have weight classes. You're not going to put a 4'9" person of slight build up against a 6'5" monster and expect anything like a fair fight.

OT but...neither kendo nor fencing has weight classes. They will indeed pit 4'9" folk against 6'5" folk. Similar to many other sports, being taller is generally advantageous because of reach and lever action, however it is not as important as it is in, say, basketball, and mass/height is definitely not anywhere near as important as it is in boxing, wrestling, or mma. The advantage of greater reach and greater strength allowing you to move the weapon faster is somewhat offset by a smaller person's lesser momentum allowing them to change direction quicker. It's still very good to be tall, but it doesn't determine the outcome as much as you might think. And almost nobody would want a heavier weapon, because those are harder to move around.

The history/evolution of the rapier also kinda shows how the "m" in p=mv and E=1/2mv^2 isn't all that important. Over time, they got thinner, lighter, and longer. Reach was very important and so a person's size did matter, but weapon mass was not. Most of the killing power was due to the point piercing something vital, not the energy of impact.

The entire point is that TTRPGs genuinely have a harder time finding a second (or third, or fourth) person to double check things than video games, because you can't do things like 'run the program until it crashes' or 'boot up a dummy 3hr play session microfocused on this one issue for every possible issue' because TTRPGs are run by people and not machines.

I agree...with an interesting new caveat looking into the future.

Paizo is working on a video game version of AV. If they go full on-line, with data collection and rapid update pushes the way many mmorpgs function, then they could very well get a fully empirical, 'big data' driven evaluation of current class and feat balance against one of their hallmark APs...and they could test run system changes in the electronic environment before committing to them on the very much slower pen and paper cycle. Is the video game going to be designed to collect such data from users? I don't know. If it is, will the pen and paper devs use the data provided for updates to the tabletop 2E system, or will the video game just be a separate product evolving on it's own? I don't know. But the possibility of big data collection from thousands (tens of thousands?) of hours of play of the PF2E system in AV offers some tantalizing opportunities for future updates.

...and so would I like to see innovations in 3e that seem really out there now, and would have been unthinkable seven years ago. In the context of this thread, this means even more modular design that takes the elements we have now and compartmentalizes them a bit more to make it easier to fine-tune the tone of the adventure, the party's desired level of character complexity, and when the GM wants characters to progress, whether by going up a power level, gaining a new ability, or adjusting their powers.

The alignment of SF with PF says to me that Paizo is all in on the 2e system for at least 5-8 more years. If Paizo had a 3E in mind, they would've leapfrogged the new SF edition into it, with the idea of aligning PF to the new system in a few years.

I'm also skeptical they have any interest in going away from the traditional d20 class and level 'with changes' framework. Particularly with folks leaving D&D for PF2E, being "the better d20 class and level system" seems to be their sweet spot. Competing with the many smaller nontraditional games for a piece of the modular (like What's Old Is New) or tiered all-feat (like Cypher) system pie...I just don't see it in the cards.

But it's not either-or. Nothing stops Paizo from developing an entirely different game system as another production line, and they could do that at any time. But IF the company looked at your ideas and IF they decided 'great idea, let's do that', then I would expect it to be that entirely different production line - different setting, different classes, different everything. The idea of incorporating such changes into PF2E in any reasonable time frame...I think if you want that, you'll have to 3PP it yourself. Maybe the first baby step is writing up a Golarion Setting book for one of the systems that more resembles what you're looking for. That way you get the modular or all feat system you like, with the setting you like, fast.

Having said that negative stuff, I like many of your ideas. In the abstract, they are cool and certainly other systems have shown they can work. In concrete...well, you aren't there yet. Hard to judge success and quality when you're in the pre-v0 phase.

All that being said, I think some concessions could be made (and would argue some already have in Giant Instinct for Barbarian) so as to show kindness to the people who want to play the game and for whom this is a problem. You don't need fundamental, underlying changes, but could introduce a handful of weapons that are specifically for differently-sized creatures that have mechanical uniqueness to them in that way.

No matter how many bespoke weapons you add, its probably not going to silence the folks who want to size up and size down as an option. Paizo gives them a large greatsword? Oh but what if I want a large greatpick?

For that reason, I'd offer a template instead. Fortunately, we already have one and there's really very little need for Paizo to make it official because it is derived from Paizo's own rules. For a character using a weapon one step larger than normal, +2 damage and Clumsy 1. That's what Enlarge does, and that's basically what giant bar gets over other bars. There is no need to spend ink on a page-sized table of exactly the same weapons but one sized up, and there is no need to select just a few to offer to players; that one sentence does them all.

Yeah, if the Balor taunted them and told them "if you kill me, it'll kill you too" then the players actions were at least somewhat reasonable.

Villain monologues, protagonists use that monologue against them is a pretty solid trope in action adventures. I'm down with both what the GM had the Balor do and how the PCs responded.

Its rather clear that only spontanious casters needs to learn spells at the rank they want to cast it. Prepared casters can prepare spells of any rank in any slot higher than its rank.

No disagreement, but a caveat to expand Vlad's understanding: spontaneous casters will get some number of Signature Spells as a class feat. Spells designated 'signature' need only appear in the repertoire once, then they can be cast at any rank. The signature spell text varies slightly by class but here's the gist of it from the Oracle entry:

"You don’t need to learn heightened versions of signature spells separately; instead, you can heighten these spells freely. If you’ve learned a signature spell at a higher rank than its minimum, you can also cast all its lower-rank versions without learning those separately".

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I just recommend to the PF2e game designers to create an option to play it the way PF1e players are used to -- to formally define and recognize it as another option to have weapon size affect damage to help give PF2e a sense of legitimacy in the minds of the PF1e player and allow us to also feel we are playing a legitimate and accepted PF2e game -- just more in line with what we're used to.

Respectfully, this strikes me as an unrealistic ask.

A long way back, related to a completely different thread, the idea of a 'big book of variants' came up. This one could easily fit in a book like that, especially since it would only take up a couple paragraphs.

However I agree there's no realistic expectation such a thing will be produced by Paizo at all, and certainly not soon. So anyone like the OP who might be (1) actively desiring to start in on PF2E but (2) needs weapon size differences, should really consider a DIY fix here. It's probably the only viable way to get the 1+2 combo at their table within the next few years.

Though I would suggest alternatively that they 'try it straight up' for a couple sessions. The lack may not bother them as much as they think it will, and if it still does, well the table can always institute a house rule at that point.

If someone wants to play a pixie with a greatsword because its funny to them only for you as a GM to tell them "well, since you are tiny you actually can't deal more than a d4 of damage with your greatsword" its just bad.

It's not even that great from a realist/simulationist perspective. As I said, bullets are tiny and do plenty of damage. A pixie just needs to get their tiny greatsword moving fast enough and...boom. Nor is high arm speed even beyond the pale; mantis shrimp punch as fast as a .22 caliber bullet moves. So if someone absolutely needs a physics explanation why pixies do d8 with their teeny battle axes, they swing it fast. Just beware the pixie swinging a mantis shrimp at you lol.

Anyway, bottom line for me is every player and group has different things that jar them out of suspension of disbelief. If this is OP's, my best advice to them is "continue to play PF1" or "homebrew fix it, doing so is really easy and multiple respondents offered suggestions as to how."

It's all physics and inertia. A tiny creature with a tiny greataxe simply isn't going to be able to hit with the same force as a huge creature with a huge greataxe -- just based on the weapon size, alone, and force of impact.

Yes and no. Bigger things swung faster have more energy, yes. But (1) who is to say the tiny creature isn't swinging their weapon faster, delivering the same force? Bullets are quite tiny but can do enough damage to kill someone. More importantly, (2) "HP damage" is not a direct measure of the kinetic energy delivered to the body.

Rather, HP is an abstract measure that "...represents your health, wherewithal, and heroic drive." and removing them can represent just plain whacking, or damage to a specific organ, or muscle, or bone, or even just some form of reducing the opponents 'wherewithal and heroic drive' - exhaustion or temporary discomfort that is hard to shake and requires some treatment to remove.

So when you say a tiny greataxe doesn't have the same force as a large one, you are making the assumption they are swung at the same velocity, which is likely incorrect. Then you are making the assumption that the damage roll is all about net force delivered, which is also not true per the rules (and likely to leads to all sorts of crazy problems, like illusory damage, mental damage, etc.). Thus a sprite's d8+4 battle axe roll of 12 can represent a torn hamstring, or exacting blow to some other critical area, or simply knocking the enemy for a loop so that they are at more immediate risk of taking a killing blow.

Having said all that, I'll repeat that if this is your one bugaboo about PF2E, the thing holding you back from playing the game, well it is pretty trivial to fix. Lower the dice size for small martial weapons by one step if you have to, and give them some compensating benefit for game balance (maybe add lethal +two dice steps, to represent that the smaller creature can target more exact areas). Likewise, for larger than listed weapons, just add a dice bump or +2 damage with Clumsy 1. It's not hard to adjust this. As multiple other posters have pointed out, the main effect of this change is likely going to be that you remove small and tiny character concepts from martial contention because you've made them unbalanced weak, while favoring large martial concepts such as minotaurs by making them better choices.

If you want "bigger weapon means more damage" you also need things like "this weapon is to big to...

Agreed. I'd also point out that in the real world, weapon makers don't simply scale up smaller weapons with the same proportions, because that's not as effective as giving something the 'right' proportions for its size (consider the problem of handles/pommels). Thus, if you want to use a giant-sized dagger the size of a longsword, then realistically it should probably not work as well as a real longsword.

But for GMs who want this added dimension to the game, "add Clumsy 1 along with the dice bump" seems to be both appropriate and have some basis in current mechanics, since it's what both Giant Bar and the Enlarge spell add.

Now, when you do interact with an ability that increases your size, it just gives you more damage.

Yes I think it's often hidden in the flat bonuses, but its there. The giant bar's +6 when every other instinct gets a lower bonus, for instance. Or if you look at monster core monsters like a cave giant or a cloud giant, their flat damage bonus is higher than their Str attribute. Enlarge gives a +2 bonus to damage. Etc.

The only thing really missing is the ability of a regular PC to pick up an oversized version of a weapon and have it have the same name, category, group, traits, etc. of the normal sized version but yet do more damage. Seems like an easy fix for the GM to make if the players are demanding it. You want a giant-sized dagger and not just call it a shortsword or longsword? Clumsy 1 and double the weight for a dice size bump, go for it.

I also agree with execquiel about realism. If you want martial artists fighting alongside armored knights and gun-slinging pirates, sprite swashbucklers next to minotaur maguses, you have to somewhat equalize the pros and cons each technique uses. That's not realistic, but it's needed for the game. That doesn't mean everything has to do the same damage, but it does mean you want to stay away from rules like 'bigger is always better' because that effectively wipes out a number of character concepts.

AOE damage dealers really hurt them a lot more than they should, especially when this damage comes from a higher-level monster that has a DC hard enough that some of them fail their saves on average. The warpriest has the Harm font and doesn't prepare many Heals, so the group relies on the Witch casting Soothe, Life Boost and Summon Unicorn to keep them going, and despite her best efforts if more than one of her allies is getting damaged each round she can't keep up.

So I'm getting three things from your post.

1. It may not be a level thing. The encounter you describe is L+1, which should be okay.

2. It may be poor tactics. If the whole party is getting hit with each cone or each burst, then they need to spend some actions moving around so that's not the case. They may not be able to avoid it all the time (a high init monster may get the jump on them, or the room may be small), but they should be trying to use actions to move away from each other so as to not present one big juicy target. I understand that they may have action economy isses because they want to use their third action for other things (witch hexes, etc.), but even with that being the case, at least on the first round they may want to use that third action to move away from each other.

3. Harm warpriest + Occult witch = very poor healing given those two classes. Looks like you've already realized this. I would suggest the warpriest invest in scrolls of healing, or a staff of healing, or that they prep the Heal spell (reversing the classic 'fonts for D, slots for A') . Does anyone in the party have Medicine + the standard in-combat healing feats? Because that can really help.

We simply don't know how their Kineticist is built or how they're playing.

Well we know "frontlines kineticist" from OP, but nothing beyond that. I agree with Unicore though. I'm trying to think of advice to help this GM make it funner for THIS party, not advice that is "get the players to change the party." What we have so far seems to be:

- They're skirmishers, set up encounters where skirmishers can shine.

- Teach other tactics they may not be using, like:
...moving away from melee enemies
...trip
...slow, take away their actions
...debuff
...buff the party (warpriest is good for this)
...raise a shield

- Use lower level but more opponents for same xp encounters. If that doesn't work, use lower-xp encounters.

- Remove problematic encounter elements (e.g. constructs if they can't manage hardness, etc.)

- Give boss encounters an alternative 'puzzle' solution (i.e. another solution beyond just whacking them over and over).

- Add house rules to reduce supplementary action costs (e.g. stand and re-arm become one action) [Late edit on Perses' suggestion]

1. There is no such thing as a frontline kineticist. 8 hit point classes that don't get Master Armor until level 19 will never be a frontline class unless you really weaken the encounters.

Going to disagree here. Con +4 combined with the armoring impulses lets a player build for str/melee and can easily keep up a max AC. Weapon infusion gives you access to trip and plenty of other good tactics. Will you outgun a giant bar or iron magus? No. But you'll have more ranged options than them for when the enemy is trying to close with you, when you're closing with them, and for when the enemy tries to escape. So it's more jack-of-all-trades, less dedicated to one specific narrow fighting style...but it'll work.

Recommendation: I houseruled that a PC can pick up their weapon while standing up as part of the same move action. It feels terrible to require to two actions to stand up and pick up their weapon.

If it feels terrible, then play a melee kin. They don't need to pick up a weapon. :)

No wonder you don't think kins are strong - you add house rules that give martials free action compression abilities to make them on par with the kin's EB use. Well sure, if you do that, kins look less good.

The enemy constantly crit succeeding (both at saves and offensive things) is partially a function of level difference. Are you wedded to BBEG fights with L+2s? It may be your players would find more enjoyment with a L & 2xL-2 put in on those occasions. They'll hit more, the enemies will save less, and it's the same experience.

Problems 2 and 6 are functions of what enemies you, the GM, pick to throw at them. Since this is a home game, the easiest solution is just don't do that. I.e. don't pick 'bad party fit' enemies...unless you have a compelling story reason to do so. Even then, GMs are free to modify adversary stat blocks, so if you have a monster you really want to put in because it's cool and it fits, but it's got some party-horrible advantage like immunity to spells or precision damage, just substitute that out for some other advantage.

Alternatively, if you really think it fits the story you're trying to tell to have THAT enemy in THAT encounter with NO stat block change, then maybe think about non-combat ways to party could overcome the encounter or ways to make it 'optional' in the sense that story success can still be achieved even if the party skips the encounter and moves on to some other scene.

If you want a bit of recall knowledge as a side gig you can take untrained improv.

I liked untrained improv for L7 too. Watch every skill you didn't take suddenly zoom up to useful.

What I'm picturing for the rune dragon is sort of a wave of light flashes out from its mouth, and it resolves into runes when it touches a target.

I was thinking they come out of it's mouth fully formed. Kinda like the 'song fight' in the last Dr. Strange movie.

So, for table expectations, if my rabbit is wandering around the battlefield, giving +1 or -1 AC, are enemies aware it's doing magic?

I would say "generally yes," for three reasons.

Is it a fair target? Is it much safer as a bird? Or on the shoulder of a Frontline?

It's a fair target. I do think they tend to be safer "on the shoulder" because if an opponent is in striking range of the PC and the familiar, they're likely to target the PC. Familiar effects can be good, but they typically aren't so good that an opponent should see the familiar as a bigger threat than the witch. It's really only when the familiar is roaming around and becomes a good 'target of opportunity' while the witch or other PCs are unavailable as targets that you should expect it to be whacked. Or, as others have noted, if it's in an AoE that was cast to target a bunch of the PCs.

I wonder if the fact that the familiar comes back each day actually makes it more vulnerable.

It's not any more vulnerable or weak than other pets. Arguably less so since the witch can get a freebie defensive focus spell as well as available defensive traits that they can change daily. So if you think today you're going to send it into combat, just lose the partner in crime and speech and load up on combat oriented traits.

With the daily resurrect, some GMs may metagame to target a witch familiar more than other ACs that have the 1 week refresh, because of the impact on the character. But that's not a rules issue, that's a table issue.

Something looking "crude" is pretty subjective.

It is, you're right.

But I think the wise thing to do in a subjective case is to let the mechanics justify the description rather than letting the description justify new mechanics not mentioned in the entry. So in a case like this, I would GM it as "because it only gives Cause a Distraction, it's too crude to result in an attack." Not "because it creates an image, it can do many more encounter actions than just Cause a Distraction."

I mean, the guy casting it is a poppet and already looks "crude" as-is, as he's a walking, talking, stuffed voodoo doll.

Yeah but zombies in movies and books don't fall for crude scarecrows. Maybe they smell the brains or something, but whatever in-house justification you want to make, I wouldn't give Figment, a cantrip, the ability to distract the same enemy into attacking it over and over again - even a zombie. That is, in my opinion, way way more than what it's intended to do.

If it being "crude" is a justification for being able to ignore it, why is it enough to still flank?

So again, I would suggest as a GM you go from mechanics given -> in-game description, rather than description -> mechanics never given.

But in this case it's easy to come up with an in-game justification for the difference; flanking means simply that they are distracted from the attack. That could be caused by a sudden 'bang!' or bright flash. There's a much wider variety of "audio/visual things that can temporarily distract" than "a/v things that look realistically enough like a creature to get something to attack it."

However, the "just don't let allow creative illusion use" feels like the kind of ruling that might lead to illusions just being bad in my game (as they are in so many others.)I'm worried about that as much as I'm worried about figment being a catch-all solution to every problem.

How about making it a very easy will save then? Spell DC -5 or something? The easiness representing how using figment to create an illusory creature is just that much cruder and less likely to fool a monster compared to a Rank 2 illusory creature, a spell designed to do exactly what your PC is trying to do.

Agree with all three above, the 'crude and undetailed' description should mean that most close adversaries are not fooled for long, if at all.

The mechanical effects are already specified: +2 circumstance bonus to Create a Diversion, and provides flanking for the amped version. If a GM wants to reward creative use, I would start with those effects and expand out thematically. So maybe a really interesting player description would be a reason to allow it used to feint (figment of my blade going elsewhere), or maybe it creates a diversion for one of your party members instead (figment makes it temporarily turn away from Bob). The notion that a further away adversary may spend and action moving towards it is cool too. That's a good creative use.

The only time I would let it suck up an attack action from some close combatant is for some easily fooled unthinking animal and a trigger they are known to go after. If you've got a house cat and your figment is of a moving red dot, sure, they waste a strike on it. There's an angry bull, okay, figment a moving cape. But those circumstances would be pretty limited, and you at best get only one use out of it.

Shroudb, do you mean the Crown of Witchcraft?
L10 item
+1 Intimidation
'Tough pet' familiar ability (only if you have a familiar)
+2 to patron skill (witch only)
1/day free action to regain a focus point (witch only)

Are we starting a yearly tradition to revive this thread? If so, you missed 2024.

Mmmmm....thrreeaads....threaaaaaaaads.

On a positive note, they give ghouls that nice bookstore smell instead of a rotten meat smell.

Any interest in a Pathfinder/Starfinder hybrid book...It would be great to hear everyones thoughts on a hybrid book.

There's a whole thread on it. Check out "Is power creep about to become a landslide?"

Since a summon can stick around for a full minute, its round-to-round abilities have to be diluted compared to an unsustained spell. You might be able to have higher-powered summons with less issue if you had to constantly feed them spell slots.

For sure I think that's some of Paizo's logic, since you see that with many non-summon spells too: spells that can be sustained and do additional damage each round, do less dpr than instant blasts of the same rank.

However the thing that's unique/particular with summon spells is that they get more behind at higher ranks. A Rank 2 summon elemental gets you an elemental "1 level behind" (i.e. you summon a L2 when your party is L3). But a Rank 10 summon gets you 5 levels behind (i.e. you summon a L15 when your party is L20).

I think a consistent 1 level behind up to L5-6 and then 2 behind beyond that would not be unbalanced, and might get them more than 'special teams' use.

Each casting is it's own effect, I'd say. The once/round limitation is IMO telling the player they can't use their 30' movement to move one sun back and forth forth between two squares to multiply the damage. But multiple separate suns rolling around? Sure.

Interesting question about the fire junction. I see most posters on the past thread think it should continue, but I am hesitating. The impulse junction description clearly states "You can gain only one impulse junction per round" and "when you use an impulse of the chosen element
that takes 2 actions or more..." Both sentences seem to me to rule out getting dice bumps by merely sustaining an impulse for 1a, and rules out getting the dice bump on two or three impulses in the same round.

What is a mirror defined as in game?

- Mirror implement has a few qualifiers but there is not "M"irror definition in the game.

Its described as hand held. A shield is not held in the hand, it is strapped onto a part of the body (the arm). Sure it has a handle that you use to make it function, but the same thing is true of a parachute: strapped to you, uses a handle to make it function. Is a parachute hand held because you must grasp a handle to make it work?

Is this balanced?

- YES! Further evidenced by the NOW existence of a shield implement proving it was never the intent for 'shields' to somehow be excluded from being implements.

That's twisted logic. The most obvious explanation for the shield implement is that the player base wanted a shield-wielding Thaumaturge and couldn't get one before due to hand use limitations, so Paizo added that option.

Is this fun?

- Yes the player gets to keep their main character concept focal point of a mirror and can build their layout differently...

I agree with you here. Since Harles is already struggling to find fun with a 'front line' style thaumaturge, it is not much of an adjustment to let them have a mirror shield. I would have no problem with Harles asking their GM for that or their GM doing it, I just see that as homebrew, not RAW.

***

The bottom line for me is that I don't think the devs intended mirror shields, and for me both your syntax and physics arguments fall flat because I try to read for their intent, not read for what I want. The thaumaturge hand use rules are complexly written and something I hope they overhaul in the remastered text, but overall the point they are trying to convey seems obvious to me: one hand is used up with implement and esoterica class functions and can't do simultaneous double duty with some other function.

Anyways, I agree with the idea that if you want to be a frontliner taking the champion dedication for heavy armor, lay on hands, and some shield reaction feats could be helpful.

It sounded to me like Harles was bored with that exact sort of setup though (i.e. move, raise shield, strike). Frankly I'd recommend to them that they not go champion for their next PC, if their current combat rotation is boring to them. I'd also probably say "don't be a magus" since that also has a somewhat 'I feel obligated to...' action rotation.

If they're still interested in playing a martial, but one that gets away from that rotation, I'd probably suggest swash, barbarian, ranger. Maybe fighter that avoids sword and board (there are plenty of other ways to build one). Or pretty much any caster will get you a different combat rotation. Thaumaturge built very differently is also an option if you like the class features just not the tank role.

There has been arguments that magnetic pinions isn't much better than just using normal elemental blast but those arguments comes from early level arguments that is dismantled pretty quickly when you realize Magnetic Pinions becomes the defacto fastest scaling ability and vastly outperforms on level spells later on if allowed to single target, Spells which are a limited resource. It being overflow also isn't a large "Cost" as the Kineticist will just channel elements with a free 1-action blast into a 2-action impulse the turn after. Which is a rather typical turn for a kineticist either way.

It's as strong as just about any other scaling impulse. Which given it's "3 anywhere" targeting, is still really good. Combined with metal having one of the strongest non-overflow 2a impulses, makes for a nice 1round-2round combo. But for someone who wants an every round 2a repeat impulse, or is worried about resistance to physical damage, this combo isn't for you.

Kineticist is just really well balanced for it's [max rank-1] concept. Things like this show how that balance can still create very different builds. Here you have great targeting + solid damage, with alternating overflow and non-overflow rounds. But it's all physical. Fairly well balanced against a more traditional AoE where every round you're doing a burst with some sort of standard save that gives you half damage on a fail, accesses another potential weakness but maybe isn't as nice in targeting as "3 anywhere".

I agree with Hammerjack. 3x single target would be TGTBT, frankly, easily out-damaging any other impulse and even the 'fire build' for single target damage, with none of the required feat-layering.

So that's a 'no' for our table.

However if you're playing Baldur's Gate 3 with the Pathfinder mod, it allows it, so go for it there. :) My son says it's easy to crit, and with the triple targeting, a metal kineticist does just huge damage. FWIW, he also says the Air impulse Flinging Updraft is great in BG3. I don't know if that's because the mod incorrectly lets the victim take damage or if there's just so many cliff-related encounters that the battlefield control aspect is great on it's own...BG3 does have lots of vertical-including environments.

I'm the only frontline character. The rest of the party is a witch, gunslinger, and rogue.

This could be part of the problem. As the only tanky character, the repetition of '(1) EV, stride, raise shield, (2) step, strike, raise shield' is not really being caused by your class, it's being caused by your role in the party. You have to move because you want to stop the melee enemies from moving to reach your ranged friends. You have to raise shield because you're probably the only target for a lot of melee attacks, and you could go down quick from being ganged up on without the shield's AC and DR.

So I'm not sure there's a "build" way out of that, but a couple of minor things spring to mind here. The first is that witch: maybe with the right change of spells, they could combo with you to make your turns more fun. Maybe give you a cool buff or control the battlefield in a way that frees up your move or shield actions to be used for Thaumaturgy stuff like mirror tricks or even just RK. The second one is a more party-centered riff of the same; are there tactics the party can try which don't force you into tank role? Maybe let the enemy come and instead set up some sort of tactical trap for them? I know this is somewhat vague and general, but the overall point is that if you're unhappy with your party role as tank, then try to fix that rather than messing with class feats etc.

Having said all that, EV + IE + strike IS pretty much kinda the way the class is supposed to function. There's wand if you no longer want to be melee, but IIRC it's considered somewhat weak.

And wood plane is for the overwhelmingly major part is about ... wood. Of different forms and types, animated or not, but mostly it's wood. And leaves. What it's not is a fruit or vegetable garden.

You may want to reread what you wrote, and consider the lowly lettuce or spinach. :)

But I think we generally agree. Personally I'd allow food from Fresh produce, some minor snacks from Base Kinesis, but that's because I think in our games it's not TGTBT nor even often relevant. (I see some good role-play out of it: teasing the 'cheap survivalist' style player by complaining about their insistence on cooking boring old acorns over the fire day after day after day, when there's a perfectly good 1cp kabob available just down the road. Because we've all played with that survivalist.) But I can definitely see how a different table, different GM, different campaign you could run the gamut from 'nope, no food' to 'Fresh produce provides a never-ending fruit stand.'

Put the lime in the coconut... coconuts are very woody, nutritious, and you could easily survive on their water content.

So if you want to go the simulationist route, I think there's plenty of creative options a player can come up with to address both food and water using the wood kineticist's impulses.

But a GM does not have to take a similuationist approach. All of this is magical; it's entirely reasonable for the GM to take a more rules-based approach and say "it does what the rules says and nothing more. It doesn't matter if in RL there are no non-magical 'nutritious fruits' with negligible water content, this is magical fruit conjured from the plane of wood, not material fruit which is a combination of many elements." Though admittedly it's a little bit harder to argue that line with base kinesis, since it specifically says the stuff it creates can be used normally.

Just to add to what Tridus said, when you get the Alchemist archetype you learn 4 formulas for that, +4 more for advanced alchemy, for a total of 8. There are no 'class only' formulas, so the archetype lets you pick freely from level 1's and eventually learn any you want (subject to the GM's rules on uncommons and rares). But AFAIK you do not start off knowing every single formula of your level or lower - you start with 8, and must acquire other formulas via loot, purchase, other feats, etc.

As Mathmuse implies, the spellcasting archetypes won't give you a lot of slots. You can eventually get access to most of the spells you've listed but you won't be casting all of them every day. It's neat to add investigative spellcasting to the martial, but most of the time you will be resolving those same problems with feats and skill checks. PF2E archetypes are not multiclassing. They are generally far less powerful. It's actually one of the ways the alchemist archetype stands out, that you get so much capability for just the standard archetype investment.