Easl's page

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thumbs up for the guide. Problems of Spellcasting DC and spellhearts are not the fault of the guide, they're the fault of the system.

They are still great items at low levels, IMO. A cantrip you otherwise can't access but can now cast at your full DC + a bit of trait resistance is plenty worth the gold.

The default is that creatures can perform Athletics maneuvers so the burden of proof is on you, Easl, to show where Eidelons can't.

Somewhat fair, but specific overrides general. Eidolons have very specific rules about what their attacks can do. This overrides the general rule about what creatures can do. Yes?

You say "my reading", but what exactly are you reading? Advanced Weaponry implies no such thing as no hands or no maneuvers (no matter how bad Disarm is as an option).

Advanced Weaponry implies that you need to take Advanced Weaponry to get one of the benefits Advanced Weaponry provides. If an Eidolon already has most of the benefits Advanced Weaponry provides, then either the feat is written terribly, or you are wrong.

All of those creatures you listed do have hands mechanically with which they can do maneuvers.

Oh really? You've met an anger phantom and evaluated it's ability to, say, play piano? These are fantasy critters in a game. They have what the game says they have.

Even in the game, they do not mechanically have hands. They have arcane/occult/spiritual/primal essence which is not limited in it's ability to manipulate objects the way an AC or familiar is limited, but is more limited than human hands in some clear and obvious ways. The biggest one being: they can't use equipment. "Hands" would imply that they can swing a sword or pull a crossbow trigger, but they can't do that. Whatever they have, it is not regular human hands that obey regular laws of physics.

Paizo had to explicitly state their limitations, but not for Eidelons?

Paizo does explicitly state their limitations, but folks here seem to want to think of the listed attacks as "this plus hands" instead of "this instead of hands." But here is what Paizo says about it:

Your eidolon starts with two unarmed attacks. Each eidolon entry suggests some forms the eidolon's attacks might take, but since eidolons can have a variety of body shapes, you decide the specific form of the unarmed attacks (claw, jaws, horn, fist, and so on) when you choose your eidolon. Some eidolons' unarmed attacks might look like swords, clubs, or other weapons, even though they are extensions of the eidolon's form. Your choice of unarmed attack determines its damage type—bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing, as appropriate. Some of the suggested attacks list a typical damage type in parentheses, but you can work with your GM to choose a damage type that is right for your eidolon. Once you decide upon your eidolon's unarmed attacks, they can't be changed except via abilities that specifically change them, except with your GM's permission. Your eidolon has a primary and secondary unarmed attack...

It then goes on to describe the primary and secondary attacks you get. You get to pick one of each. And that's what you get. There is nothing in the rules to indicate that they get a primary attack, a secondary attack, and then a tertiary open hand combat ability to trip grapple etc.

Animal & Construct Companions, even snakes or exotic ones w/ no hands, can perform maneuvers. But not Eidelons which are superior?

None of that makes sense.

ACs can do in combat the things their form specifies they can do. Eidolons are superior because they get that, plus the action compression of act together, plus out of combat manipulation like opening doors, plus speaking, plus using skills that the summoner has, etc. It's very sensible, at least to me. They do not have the full range of capabilities of a second PC, but they have a larger range of capabilities than an AC or familiar.

Did you see what Yuri posted about activities?

Yes; I even quoted from his text on subordinate actions.

You say that any competent summoner keeps their eidolon far away from them to avoid Vine Lash and other Whirlwind-Strike-like abilities. But there are plenty of situations that require you to be near or even adjacent to your eidolon, so a summoner and eidolon both getting fireballed or Vine Lashed isn't always coming down to skill. Which is why summoners have the mitigating rule in the first place.

All of this is true...but also true for other classes; some matchups are just plain bad for one class or another. This is a bad matchup for a summoner. But that's not, IMO, reason to buff up the class.

I'm playing a summoner now, IMO the class is well balanced already, and doesn't need the damage resistance buff interpretation you're giving it. If your desire to count the two strikes as a single effect is coming from a personal experience of one of your players who is struggling with the double tap problem, isn't finding the summoner fun, and regularly dies mid-combat encounter from monster abilities like this, then that to me is a good reason for you as a GM to maybe expand the summoner's 'one event' interpretation. I'd support that. However if this is coming from a white room analysis fear that the class is too weak, I would strongly suggest just letting it be and not fixing what ain't broken, for IMO the summoner ain't broke.

Not sure about Fresh Produce, but Base Kinesis allows the PC to generate small amounts of their element at will, with: "The element can be used for any of its normal uses. For example, air can be breathed by an air-breathing creature..."

So a water kineticist can create water for drinking at will, and it's not much of a stretch to say a wood kineticist can create something like walnuts for eating at will. Chestnuts, cashews, other tree nuts are very woody. Heck cinnamon is just bark, and maple syrup is basically just sap.

What counts as 'wood' is up to you though; if you think it throws off the story, don't allow it.

A summoner's eidolon can have a primary unarmed attack that deals 1d8 damage and has the disarm/shove/trip trait (or nonlethal). But is there really a point to this beyond adding your handwraps' item bonus to the Athletics check? The main purpose of the disarm, shove, and trip traits is to let the user Disarm, Shove, or Trip despite not having a free hand.

If either unarmed attack is a fist, then doesn't the eidolon have a free hand already? Couldn't it just decide to Disarm, Shove, or Trip the opponent?

We currently interpret it as "no." You select the eidolon's primary and secondary attacks (here: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1581), and that tells you ALL the weapon traits it can access. Thus if you pick d8 shove for your primary attack, you can shove but not trip, disarm, or go non-lethal.

If it started with all of the open hand ones via a "unlisted tertiary open hand attack", then yes that first primary attack entry would be badly designed, and as well the feat Advanced Weaponry would be largely redundant and useless (except for the versatile entry). That does not seem to be the intent; instead, the description of the primary/secondary attack selection combined with the presence of the Advanced Weaponry feat indicates to me that the PC gets the weapon traits selected in primary/secondary to start with, and if they want others they can get them through feat selection.

But maybe we are being too restrictive? I'm definitely curious to see how others have run this.

I totally get that, but it shouldn't be at the expense of verisimilitude.

Did your GM give you a circumstance bonus for higher speed? That would seem to be very reasonable.

I fear that allowing such effects to bypass that once per target limitation on the basis of "Well, it is all one effect, but isn't it basically just action compression of two discrete effects?" is dangerous, especially if only one class is susceptible to such a dire effect.

Hopefully the Summoner player is not a noob whose first combat encounter ever is with a level 6 Shambler. If that's the case, then yeah for sure maybe give them a do over for their first round or something else, so they can learn the ins and outs of the class before they die.

However the summoner 'two target' aspect is such huge part of their tactics that most players starting at level 1 will have a handle on 'what not to do' by the time they reach level 4-6. If I'm playing my summoner and the party's facing some L+2 melee BBEG with long-reaching tentacles, the eidolon may be in it's face but my summoner is 30' or more away

Which is my long-winded way of saying: don't change the RAW because you fear it might shaft Summoners; the 'getting whacked from two sources' issue is something they deal with almost every combat, and know how to deal with it. By the time they meet Mr. Shambler, they should be okay. It's not like they're stuck with a puny three actions. In that first shambler round, a L4 summoner probably gave both her figures a move action via tandem movement (positioning one forward, one back), then acted together to blast with a spell at range while striking it with a melee attack.

It seems like the summoner and eidolon are both getting damaged by the same Vine Lash effect.

The 'vine lash effect' is mostly just an action compression: you may now do X separate attacks in a 2-action period. The attacks are their own actions, with their own results and their own effects.

But let's turn it around: the Summoner also has a feat where the "effect" is action compression with subordinate actions: Act Together. Let's say there's a Summoner A-on-Summoner B fight. On A's turn, they Act Together, blasting summoner B with a spell while Eidolon A strikes Eidolon B. Should B only take the worst hit, or both? Both, right? "Only the worst" doesn't make any sense here, because a spell blast and the strike are clearly separate actions with separate effects - even if they were both performed as part of Act Together. Well, that's very much like Vine Lash. It's primarily just an action compression feat; the actions it compresses are still their own things.

I think I'd see it as one single effect if the Shambler made one attack roll and compared it to all relevant ACs, then made one damage roll which was applied to all hit targets. That would be very similar to an AoE and have all the indications of "one effect" to me. But that's not what it does. This really looks like a feat that simply permits several attacks that use different to-hit rolls, to produce different results...i.e., effects.

The attacks are solved separately, but the damage is only the highest...

..This almost a general rule. Other things like kineticist's Crawling Fire does the same. If something shares HP between 2 creatures and both would be damaged by the same damage effect, you only apply the highest damage, not the damage twice.

I don't think that applies here.

Crawling fire has slightly different wording than the Summoner class text; it says "only once from any ability" where the Summoner says "are both subject to the same effect". I would not use Crawling fire's text to adjudicate a 2-action multiple strike ability on a Summoner. Vine lash is one ability which gives the Shambler action compression on multiple strikes, with each strike being a separate attack creating a separate effect. If the shambler hits Alice, misses Bob, and crits Charlie, those three strikes create three very different effects.

But nowhere have I found that it is impossible to create a fireball on a bridge and launch it into the water.I understand that this implies indirectly, but maybe there are specific examples of other effects?

See "Aquatic combat." https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2438

I would guess that most GMs would use the last bullet to say no to what you're suggesting: At the GM's discretion, some ground-based actions might not work underwater or while floating.

These seem in-theme

R2 Sudden blight
R6 Necrotize
R7 Execute
R9 Massacre

There are similar feats and abilities already.

The Familiar Master archetype gets Familiar Conduit, which let's you cast spells from your familiar's position.

Sorcerers have access to Spell Relay, allowing them to treat themselves as a point of origin for an ally's spell

I'm sure there are other options closer to what you want; those are just the ones I know off the top of my head.

Psychic has Warp Space. Level 2 and it can easily make a 90-degree turn. Heck it could probably do a 180-degree turn in a U-shaped corridor, if the 'bottom' of the U isn't too thick.

at the end of the day, to whose benefit is any of this?

The players and GMs who don't want to have knock-down battles within their group because that guy insists that an official conversion guide = Paizo says I can play it.

The GMs who want to decide for themselves how to adjudicate these issues, without a competing Paizo version.

So I understand you want a 'how to', but recognize that a canon 'how to' implies (to some people, at least) a canon 'can do' and a 'do this way.' It's very difficult to send the first message without sending the other two.

Ultimately, these arguments are vacuous, and seem to be made for the express purpose of coming across as morally or intellectually superior to anyone who dared to post critical feedback on this thread.

No not at all, and you're denigrating the critics of your idea. A conversion guide codifies game-to-game transfers. It's a perfectly understandable and reasonable position for a GM to say "I'd rather do that myself, thanks, and I don't want Paizo to tell me how to do it."

it would likely be more helpful for us all as a community to at least try to see what can be identified as something to watch out for, or at the very least stop talking down to people who have valid reasons to ask for more clarity.

I don't think anyone on this fora has disagreed with the idea of a community guide...or even multiple guides. People create them all the time, especially for classes. Did someone do a sorcerer guide or a soldier guide? Add a conversion chapter. Sounds awesome to me.

So thumbs up on that. But thumbs down to any claim that people who disagree are making a vacuous argument in order to come across as morally superior to other posters.

I think a lot of the concerns here are somewhat overblown.

Agree. It was a promotional event, and for PFS. That's it.

I'm kinda surprised at the reaction here tbh. I always interpreted 'compatible rules' to mean just that, rules compatibility. Which is different from setting compatibility. Clearly, in moving from SF1E to SF2E, Paizo was NOT telling PF2E GMs they must now allow laser pistols in their game. The rules may now be the same, but it is still the case that setting-specific content from one only crosses into the other by GM approval - and ancestries are very obviously setting-specific content.

Would a conversion guide be nice? Sure. Is it even remotely necessary? Not at all. Is it a good use of Paizo resources?. Not my decision to make but I'd guess not.

I think 'conversion guide' is what they are trying to avoid. No major rules should need converting any more (though there may always be little stuff)

I think best bet for Paizo to address it is if they create a crossover AP. In such a publication, I would expect a page or two section helping the GM identify and manage potential cross-setting issues - like OP's 1st level flight or Teridax's mention of PF2E better energy resistances. Once written, that section would probably see a lot of use outside of the AP it was written for. :)

Timber sentinel being a stronger guardian tree isn't power creep, because nobody in their right mind is going to take a kineticist dedication just for timber sentinel because it's stronger protector tree.

Oh I dunno, that one, the healing ones, and a couple of the stances make it really tempting. Use-all-you-want on things where your attack or save DC doesn't matter are like this whole other dimension of niceness. IMO the thing holding the kineticist archetype back is not what you get but when you get it; waiting until L4 to get your first impulse, then getting 1 per 2 levels is kinda meh. I think a lot of other archetypes deliver a quicker 'hit' of benefit.

One thing I can't help but notice is a lot of the suggestions pertain to specific types of kineticists. It really sounds like you need to build into the right elements to diversify yourself.

I view it as one of the strengths of the class that right from level 1, you can bring a lot of damage type flexibility into play. Unfortunately they don't have the same flexibility when it comes to saves; Air, Fire, Water are mostly all Reflex. Wood is barely better, they only get Sangvolient Roots for fortitude. Earth and Metal have the best variety of reflex + fort saves, with Metal also having an AC-targeting impulse.

We have yet to see Paizo publish more impulses. I expect they will at some point, and cross fingers they'll throw in a few more Will save or Fort save impulses. It's a semi-regular complaint on the boards, so hopefully they've heard it...

Easl wrote:

Our homebrew is to use the PC rules for dying on familiars and companions (dying 1, wounded 1, recovery checks, etc.).

I'm curious why this is being called a homebrew.

Because I thought it was? The GM made a big deal about doing it so I may have gotten a wrong impression from them.

In any event, if it's RAW then I have to say I see little reason to add in an extra feat or ability to make them come back fast. Spend the actions to stabilize or heal your pet, you machiavellian jerks. :) And don't try and say the long recovery time is unfair if it was your conscious decision to explode them for extra damage. You knew the time when you did the crime.

Our homebrew is to use the PC rules for dying on familiars and companions (dying 1, wounded 1, recovery checks, etc.).

Caveat emptor: in terms of impact it's probably much stronger than any of the alternatives suggested above - equal to a 1 scene loss (or less if you mid-combat heal them) rather than even a day. But the real benefit for us is that the GM now feels free to have monsters go after the familiars/companions when it makes story sense for that to happen, and there's no bad feelings on the players' parts about it.

Worth pointing out, too, that it prevents Final Sacrifice abuse. If you intentionally kill your familiar/companion (go strait to dead, do not pass dying 1 2 3), then you'd still have to wait the same week to get it back.

Actually, thinking about it again, there is no way to jump away between targeting and the attack roll. Those are purely mechanical steps that don't exist in world at all.

This is untrue though. People wielding weapons absolutely do target and do hand-eye actions before successfully connecting, and it is absolutely the case that victims can react to that by moving while/in the midst of that hand-eye action taking place.

The GM's judgment on game balance is a valid reason to reject the Trip jump. The GM's judgment that even if not OP, it disrupts the fast flow of a combat scene is another. The GM assessing that this is not RAI is a third. And if the player tries to use a purely mechanical trigger like "they roll their attack", that should be rejected too. But your argument above - i.e. that there is some real life verisimilitude reason to reject "when they swing at me, I will move" as impossible, no IMO that's not a good reason to reject it. Such actions do exist in the real world.

They wanted people to try out the SF2 playtest so that was an incentive. I don't think you can get it now, so the overall impact isn't going to spread that far.

Ah okay, a sort of "promotional one-off." Definitely not cause for concern then, at least IMO.

I mean they could do that again whenever they wanted, but this specific observed event does not signal Paizo going in some 'mixing free for all' direction between the two games.

In no way does ready allow you to convert a 1 action activity into a 100 percent dodge or anything the one action activity can't already do. You have no rules support for that any more than readying a strike when a spell is cast can disrupt it.

Ready allows you to perform a 1-action leap as a reaction. The downstream consequences of that 1-action leap are just not relevant to whether it's RAW legal or not; it is.

This doesn't resolve the timing disagreement (i.e. whether the leap can happen during the triggering action or only after it completes).

However, even on the most conservative interpretation of 'action completes first', IMO it would be absolutely incorrect GMing to prevent Ready/leap from avoiding the second action attack by arguing that leap doesn't say it avoids attacks. That's like saying a PC throwing a candelabra can't light a drape on fire, because the 'throw' action doesn't specify it lights things on fire. The chronologically later story consequences of an action or reaction are irrelevant to the question of whether it's RAW.

Squiggit wrote:

Do you have any advice, homebrew, or play experience to make them feel more fun against bosses?

Focus on non-damage impulses. Kineticists IMO shines way more with utility than damage.

Seconded. Also look to use damage impulses that have secondary effects (difficult terrain, forced movement, debuff, etc.). You can't outblast a dedicated blaster, don't try. Lean into the 'some blast and some X' role instead, where X = buff, debuff, battlemap control, whatever.

Another option would be Kinetic Activation

I agree with your utility argument, but I'd give a caution message to the OP or anyone reading this thread who thinks they're going to use kinetic activation to improve their straight-up blasting: it generally won't. Paizo balanced wands and staves exactly the same way they balanced impulses: they give the user [max Rank-1] spell effects. Yes, your solar det is one rank behind a same-level sorcerer's fireball in terms of straight-up damage. That stinks. But if you buy a fireball wand of your level, it will also be one rank behind that sorc's max slot. So buying that fireball wand didn't get you much.

Having said that, maybe for the OP, the kin can get a single target spell that works better for bosses? There may be some value there...just tell them not to expect the number or size of damage dice to go up.

There's two exceptions. The first is scrolls: you can use [max Rank] ones. It's expensive, but there you go. The second is if the GM allows/drops higher level items. Kinetic activation and a L+2 staff or wand should let you overtop your regular impulse damage, once per day each. In a home campaign this would be up to the GM, but in AP played straight up, occasionally you can get loot of higher level, particularly if the party has gone deeper/farther than they should. ;)

Agree with SuperParkorio's quote of the simultaneous action rules (PC1, p415), followed by their point about triggers (PC1, p417), followed by Trip's counterpoint that it's pretty easy to come up with a trigger that fulfills the second rule and seems to fit the first case. That's a nice sequence of discussion.

Unicore's etc. main concern seems to be about game balance and table fun i.e. not slowing down combat or making it less fun. Fair enough. All I can say to that is, personally my group is trying it until that happens, because that seems to be the most player-agency-forward way to do it. When it breaks an encounter, we'll rein it in. And what do we lose by that approach? One encounter might be less fun or take longer than it could have. For us, not a lot of cost.

its apparent utility when used to basically disrupt a solo enemies entire turn

It causes one action to fail. That's all.

with a mechanically infallible

resourceless (beyond actions) activity

I think you and Deriven both handwave away how expensive this is in actions.

the problem is that most GMs won't really see how disruptive it is to play it this way until it is happening and then it is going to lead to hard feelings at the table,

The table should definitely discuss it; what does a 'ready' look like to an opponent, is it reasonable to react to seeing it, etc. Note this doesn't just scope out how the GM will play the NPCs, it also tells the players what they might expect if an NPC uses the same trick against them. Fair's fair, right? If you want them to have no inkling of what you're doing, then you're going to have no inkling when they do it. Or the reverse: if "they seem ready for an attack" is a visible thing when the monster does it, then it's going to be visible to the monster when the PCs do it. But having said that, there's really no rules way to enforce "don't be a jerk." If the GM's going to be a jerk about it, then that's a problem entirely separate from disagreement over 'mechanically, when does this reaction trigger.' Likewise, if a player throws a tantrum because they expect the monster to walk into their ready trick most of the time and the monsters often don't, that's a problem separate from the mechanics.

just letting the reaction happen after the move action still allows it to be useful, without allowing it to basically break major concepts of the game like AC being the measure of how difficult a creature is to hit.

I don't think it breaks major concepts of the game, because 'strike at an empty square' already happens in cases of invisibility. And AC isn't the only measure, you have hidden and concealed which both have the ability to ignore an AC hit if you fail a flat check. 'vs. Save' attacks also don't use AC as the sole measure of hitting, and that's been true in d20/class and level systems since the 1970s.

Why even have dexterity factor into Armor class if the assumption is that dodging is something characters are supposed to actively do

AC can be an abstract measure of dodging attacks + armor deflection while attempting to do offensive acts, AND this can represent a much more concerted effort to avoid a blow. It's not an either/or thing.

In any event, the academic discussion seems to be doing a lot of circling, and empirically my table play hasn't yet produced any of the negative play experience you fear. Sure it might in the future, but for now it's an easy call for us. This is the sort of thing that looks impressive in white room, but in at-the-table combats the action cost is just too expensive for players to want to use it much. Consider for instance that a fighter is possibly giving up damage on a 2-for-1 scale; they lose their second strike AND their reactive strike just to mitigate one enemy strike. Not a good deal the vast majority of the time.

Nothing says you can't? The counter to that is nothing says you can.

It's a weak counter, IMO, because this is a role playing game, not chess. The rules are not intended to give players a fixed, limited, defined set of actions they can do and exclude all else. Quite the reverse; the rules are intended as a framework to cover any action the players can describe. That doesn't mean every described action works, but it does mean that - at least IMO - "nothing says you can" is a pretty terrible starting position for GM to take towards player "can I..." questions.

No skill feats for athletics or acrobatics that allow you to dodge a blow with 100 percent effectiveness using a reaction.

Yes you keep saying that. I get it. You don't need to repeat it. But its not a good argument. Both because Trip and Finish and possibly others have given you direct counterexamples of where an ability does, in fact, do this. And also because TTRPGs are full of tricks and moves and fiddly odd exceptions to general rules that allow unique things to happen. So it wouldn't matter if this was unique to Ready, IMO that's not a good reason to forbid it. That's just being arbitrary. When I put on my GM hat, I want to be expansive in allowing players to try things the rules don't cover in detail. So for me, a good reason to forbid this would be pretty much limited to (i) my best interpretation of RAW and RAI is that the general "Ready" reaction should occur only after the opponent's triggering action has completely finished. Or (ii) it's OP. Or (iii) it slows down combat scenes. Or (iv) it's disruptive to table fun in some other way. Here, i is not the case - I don't necessarily think that must always be true. And empirically, so far in our actual games, ii, iii, and iv haven't been the case either.

Now we just get to dream up ready actions that work better than feats, spells, and don't require any expenditure but some actions that work with 100 percent effectiveness?

I think you're drastically underselling the cost of 2 actions and a reaction. From my limited but actual session experience with this, PC martials with the option of using it have gone 'no thanks', because a second strike and a nonstrike third action is typically a better use of their action budget. I'm hoping we'll see it in action in future games just to get a better idea of where it ranks in terms of options, but I can tell you right now, at least at my table, it's not considered OP. It's not even considered that good. Because the cost is quite high. In a 3-round combat, you're giving up 20% of your total action budget to possibly prevent 1 enemy strike. I say 'possibly' because while yes it's 100% likely that you avoid a strike, it does absolutely nothing if the enemy just targets someone else or does something else. So your 2a+reaction may go entirely wasted, as your buddy takes the hit you spent so many resources to avoid, or as you take the save spell where you expected a strike.

But the final word is, as you say, this is a table decision. If your table doesn't allow it while mine does, no biggie.

Well last night's session was somewhat combat-light. We had only two combat scenes. Three tree drops but no uses of ready-step; there just weren't good situations for it, and our front-liners saw more value in 2nd attacks and outright movement rather than ready. So I expect we'll keep it in our game, because despite all the alarmism here, it seems circumstantially useful at best, and not at all overpowered. In terms of defensive actions, it's far far less generally valuable than a 2a tree drop or 2a heal, and it requires the "wrong" party members to play defense (i.e. the ones in the best position to play offense).

I thought we were discussing in comparison to Trip's desire to have a 2 action ready action that allows a 100 percent miss chance while using up a strike. I was illustrating that even this tree is not a 100 percent miss chance.

I don't think Paizo intended for 100 percent miss chances for a 2 action ready action for a reaction that uses up the strike from an unlimited resource for any class.

Yes we are discussing that.

But IMO yes there are comparable 100% miss chance abilities. I referred to one: when facing an invisble opponent (or an enemy facing an invisible character), if they swing at an empty square, they miss, 100%, doesn't matter what they roll. That's basically what Trip's idea is doing - causing a swing at an empty square. So at least in my mind, there is no prima facie reason to think this is OP, since 'causing your opponent to swing at an empty square' is already a mechanic that happens in the game some times. But really, I'm not putting my money on 'I found a precedent.' My table's going to decide this empirically.

We're talking about regular strikes right now. But what about using this against a 2 action activity like Crashing Slam or some monsters 2 action activities or a blink charge or something. Does it only work against a regular strike? What if you're using the new Power Attack?

Well, the PC has to name a specific in-game detectable trigger, not just a game mechanic. Can you think of one that protects against strikes AND moves AND crashing slams AND a blink charge? Probably not, right? So that's one limitation and a way an opponent can defeat it: when you see your opponent 'ready for you', do something significantly different from what you think they readied for. 'Ready for strike' probably covers both a 1a strike and a 2a power strike, but 'ready for move' probably doesn't cover a blink charge...and 'ready for blink charge' probably shouldn't cover "I step and strike."

And turtle, I'd say this applies to your question too. ISTM that if a table accepts Trip's idea, then yes it would reasonably follow that someone could ready a move or jump for other things too. But with the same limitation problem; you have to specify a trigger, and so unless you're facing one enemy that does one single thing, readying against 'if they throw a bomb' or 'if they shoot an arrow' will result in the ready action simply being lost if the opponent goes 'ah, I see they readied something but I don't know for sure what? Okay, I'll throw a dagger instead' or even just 'Ah, okay, I'll throw my bomb at the wizard instead.'

This means that this feat is effectively giving your allies a 10 HP per rank buffer at the cost of two actions and apparently no daily resources. And unlike the proposed Ready strat, which only protects yourself, this buffer protects any ally adjacent to the tree, so the enemy has to put up with the tree no matter who they try to Strike.

Yep. In our low-level campaign we run into L+2s a lot, which means PCs regularly go down. With the tree, much less so. I counted totals one session at level 2. It stopped 50 pts that session. Considering using 2 casters, 3ish slots (we don't have a cleric) + 2 wands might only regularly get 70ish points out of their whole days' worth of slot and wand healing, that's a huge benefit to the party.

Having said that, I don't think it's crazy unbalanced. IMO there's just a lot more wiggle room for defensive powers than offensive ones (at least at low levels). Meaning that if Paizo publishes a strong offensive ability, parties start crushing encounters that should be difficult really quickly. That makes the game feel less challenging. With a strong defensive ability, the party simply survives them better or fewer people go down in a fight, but it still feels difficult to beat the thing or things. Also, from experience, it's really not anywhere near as useful as a good offensive power when you're facing things that run away (and then sound the alarm/go get their friends). There have been several encounters where it would have been much better for us for the martial to get high initiative and trip, or someone to use positioning to prevent an escape, vs. the kineticist getting high initiative and dropping a tree.

Back to the OP: our GM is accepting of Trip's idea, and I expect we might try it once or twice next session, this weekend. So we'll see how much difference it makes. Given that we have already seen the 'you swing at an empty square' defense used via invisibility, I'm highly skeptical this will be OP (again, for low levels; high levels YMMV)

I know you're making jokes, but I did have to reread the question a few times to realize he was reference Snake of Metal gear solid using a box to hide from enemies.

20 cubic feet is about the size of a refrigerator or hotel-size laundry basket on wheels.

It doesn't create wood at all, so no "poof! I create a wooden chest around myself." But if there was a large unworked piece of wood around about that size (maybe a big stump?), you could create a hollow in it to hide in. That 'unworked' caveat in the spell stops all shenanigans like reshaping doors and chests though.