Edge93's page

As per the title. If you have a staff with a low level spell, such as the level 1 Shocking Grasp in a Staff of Evocation, can you heighten it, for example by spending more charges on it? Or for a Sorcerer, can they expend a higher level spell slot than the spell along with one charge from the staff to heighten the staff spell?

I would kind of assume not, because higher level staves tend to have heightened versions of the spells of previous versions, and if you can heighten then this would be completely superfluous because higher level staves also have the lower spells.

But if you can't, I feel like that makes the balance of staves all over the place with staves that have lower level spells that stay good without Heightening being especially good and staves like Evocation that rely on Heightening for their spells to be good have their Lowe level spells being nigh-useless.

In particular a Staff of Divination seems especially good for having a strong battery of True Strike spells. This remains true even if you can heighten staff spells, but I feel it would still even things up better.

So, I've seen this debated in several places and don't think I could successfully hunt them all down, so I'm making this singular post. (Note, the phrasing might seem just slightly awkward as I've largely copied it from a post I made in another thread that prompted me to make this, I'm being slightly lazy there but also wanted to make sure I didn't mix anything up)

There's been a lot of debate on if that's true because people say Athletics checks for maneuvers aren't technically attack rolls, and Finesse calls out attack rolls, but I finally found and corralled together the relevant bits of text that indicate it is supposed to work that way (aside from, you know, devs saying it does).

CRB P446, under "Attack Rolls", "When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll."

P446, under "Multiple Attack Penalty", "The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take...Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others."

P629, Glossary, attack trait, "an ability with this trait involves an attack..."

P282, under Finesse trait, "You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon..."

P283, under Trip trait, "You can use this weapon to Trip with the Athletics skill..."

Taken all together it's actually pretty clear that action with attack trait = attack and attack = attack roll so action with attack trait = attack roll, and Finesse lets you replace Str with Dex on attack rolls using the weapon "and Trip let's you use the weapon to Trip", so a Finesse weapon with Trip or another maneuver trait allows Dex in place of Str with that maneuver.

Deep breath hopefully that'll put an end to the debate on Finesse trait maneuvers finally.

This is more just a funny anecdotal bit from a PT game I'm running, rather than any discussion about rules or reveals.

Until recently my party consisted of an Arcane Sorc with Rogue MC, an Occult Sorc with Barbarian MC, an Occult Sorc with Fighter MC, an Alchemist with Ranger MC, a Fighter with a Homebrew Archetype, and a Cleric GMPC.

Due to story stuff (mostly stuff at request of their players) the Alc and Sorc/Fighter died or left the party on... Questionable terms, and they brought in replacement characters. A Ranger and a Primal Sorc with Druid MC.

So Ranger, Fighter, Cleric, Occult Sorc, Arcane Sorc, Primal Sorc.

I joked to my party that I was considering changing the GMPC into a Divine Sorc so we'd have a full set. XD

As per the banquet happenings, I'm making a place for attendees to put up their personal Pathfinder spoilers! Please put the number of the spoiler along with the text if you will, and here's hoping we can get them all in for that promised info dump!

To elaborate on the title a little, I'm making this thread as a spot to idly chitchat about making various PF1 concepts that aren't explicitly represented by name in PF2, be they classes we don't have PF2 versions of, archetypes, prestige classes, etc.

For example, Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are VERY nicely represented by Fighter/Rogue with caster Multiclass or vice versa, and even allows the idea of the class with different casting types (though some kf these already have names, like how Fighter and Cleric would basically be Warpriest). I especially appreciate how a PF2 version of Arcane Trickster doesn't suffer completely tanked progression in the two things it does until like level 7 and how Eldritch Knight isn't incompetent with a sword for almost its whole career and can actually cast in armor.

Another one that came to mind recently was Zen Archer, a Monk with a Multiclass to grab Bows practically does it. It's not perfect though since you can't flurry with the bow and proficiency won't be getting high than Expert (well unarmed only goes to master so it's not that far behind). But the Flurry not working with bows encourages mixing melee and ranged combat and I like that. Would be kinda nice if we could get a feat equivalent to Monastic Weaponry for other weapons.

As the title implies, a place to post ideas for weapons in PF2. Just a reminder of the standards that are mostly kept to in the Playtest:

Simple 1H, d4 with 3 traits or d6 with 1.

Simple 2H, d8 with 1 trait (there's literally only one 2H simple weapon rn, but it's safe to assume d6 with 3 traits would fit).

Martial 1H, d4 with 5 traits, d6 with 3 traits, or d8 with 1 trait.

Martial 2H, d8 with 3 traits, d10 with 2 traits, or d12 with 1 trait.

Exotic, 1 additional trait over a Martial weapon of their Handedness.

Ranged weapons I am unsure of how they work.

(Two exceptions, some weapons have Thrown 10 without costing a trait and the Fatal trait seems to work differently and generally isn't worth it)

Before I get to my presented weapon, a couple personal tweaks I Houserule because they don't match these standards:

Scimitars get finesse. As a d6 Martial 1H they should have 3 traits, not 2. I picked finesse because Dervish Dancers.

Elven Curve Blade gets Sweep. As a d8 Martial 2H it should have 3 traits, not 2. I picked sweep because it seems fitting and it continues the theme of the ECB being basically a finesse Falchion or 2H Scimitar.

Also Staff is weird. It's a Simple 1H with only the two hand (d8) trait. By shown standards it should start as a d6 or have two additional traits. Maybe it could have Parry and something else? Parry and Trip maybe? That would be cool.

Lastly I make Shuriken d6. Normally compared to a hand crossbow it has less damage and 1/3 the range with the only consolation being no reload, yet the Shuriken is martial while the hand x-bow is simple. I felt that upping the Shuriken damage to match was quite fair.

Now all that done, on to the weapon I present.

Maulaxe (I believe this is traditionally Dwarven but I am unsure):
Exotic 1H weapon, d6, slashing damage, shove, sweep, versatile (Bludgeoning).

I had this idea because I was making an NPC ally for my own game and wanted them to have a weapon meant to fight undead, and thought that a slashing and Bludgeoning weapon would be perfect. I think the Clan Dagger does this but I wanted something heftier. But a simple d8 slashing weapon with versatile (Bludgeoning) was boring. I had the idea to add the typical trait for both axe and hammer, and wanted to make it throwable too, all told the trait cost pushed it to be a d6 1H exotic (though you could turn the throw range down to 10 and make it martial, or make it d4 martial and add deadly d6 or something but eh).

So feel free to post ideas of your own and I will do the same when I come up with more!

Just taking a moment to say that I am SOOO happy with the changes we have heard about for Clerics! Specifically the Warpriest path with heavy armor and better weaponry and the change of spell attacks using casting mod.

My signature PF character (and first character I ever played as well as my usual GMPC or at least a side character) is a Battle Cleric (Fire and Healing) and while building him in PF2 was fun he did have some work to do, including needing feats to get his preferred weapon and armor. And forget using ranged touch attacks. But with Warpriest giving heavy armor straight off and using Wis for spell attacks it's like a straight buff tailored to him! I'm just so happy.

And I'm happy to hear there's a casting focused mod too. I've tried to make pure caster Clerics before and just have a hard time for some reason. I'm eager to see what it does, I expect it's similar to the extra school spells of a Wizard, but in any case I'm hyped.

I love all the changes I've heard except for one or two, but this is one of the things I've been happiest about, Clerics being my favorite class.

And I'm looking forward to the changes to Powers and possibly rumored Focus-recharge methods too!

Anyone else have some love their favorite class has gotten that they're hyped about?

The title pretty much says it all. Recent-ish comments by Mark Seifter have indicated that the Ranger will be getting a Paladin/Monk style treatment in the CRB or at least shortly thereafter publication-wise, in that they will have the option to obtain Powers/Focus Spells as the PF2 version of the low-tier casting they possessed in PF1, much like the Paladin already has. I for one am down for this, I liked how the Paladin and Monk handled it and I feel like the Ranger will look good too.

So I'm curious what kind of ideas anyone has for what Ranger Focus Spells might actually look like. I don't really have too many ideas myself that aren't just "nature stuffs" or copying something like the Druid Order base Powers.

One thought I did have though was something to toy with Hunt Target. The general concept being a 1 or 2 action cast spell that causes you to mark multiple creatures as your Hunted Target at once. I think the concept behind this power is a decent one, it gives something that might satisfy those who dislike the single-target nature of Hunt Target or the action cost to switch targets, and while potentially very useful it isn't anything you can't do without if you're down with focusing on one target at a time. And a spell point seems an appropriate cost for the multi-target IMO. It also keeps Double Target from being invalidated since DT can be done all day without resource cost.

The Power could expand in usability as it heightens, too. Like at first it just marks all creatures within sight, lasts on each one until they die or until you mark someone else I guess. Then at some point it gains a boon where you can use it when you find the tracks of multiple creatures and it gives you the benefits against all of them, even allowing you to hunt another target normally in the meanwhile (Like say if you get in a fight between finding the tracks and finding the quarry). And then eventually maybe it just takes on a lengthy duration like 1 hour or something, or even 10 minutes, and during the duration you can, whenever you please, spend 1 action to make any number of creatures in sight or that you are tracking your Hunted Target.

Of course this idea would need refinement to actually make a usable Power that fits the requirements of the system with a simple description. But I feel like the concept keeps from being overpowered by the fact that it never actually gives greater benefit than your Hunt Target, it just lets you apply those benefits more freely, but it gains a great value for versatility by doing so.

...And that's all I have off the top of my head. I'd wait and think of more, but I think just the one is fine as a conversation starter.

Well, also something to speak with animals would be nice. And maybe plants. And something that gives like one of a variety of benefits depending on what kind of terrain you are in would be cool (Like a conditional bonus to Stealth in a forest or fire resistance in a desert).

I'll post comments later when I get more ideas. Meanwhile I look forward to seeing what others think of these or what ideas others have too!

Hearken unto me and listen, my brothers! For too long we have unknowingly suffered under the inconsistent naming conventions of our armory! For while we have such grand weapons as the Greatsword and the Greataxe, their bretheren do not follow this glorious line of reasoning!

If these grand two-handed weapons are named so Great, then why are their weaker one handed bretheren, the Longsword and Battleaxe, not named the Goodsword and Goodaxe? Why must this injustice stand!

And furthermore I posit that their even wimpier bretheren, the Shortsword and Hatched, be immediately renamed to the Okaysword and Okayaxe. And lastly that their unspeakably smol cousins the Dagger and Sickle be put under the well-deserved names of Badsword and Badaxe. Or alternatively Lamesword and Lameaxe.

Join me, brothers! Do not let these terrible weapon names stand! Rally together and call Paizo forth to account for these decisions and bring about proper naming conventions!

Huzzah!

...I'm sorry. I've wanted to do this for a while. XD

As the title implies, this is a place to list and discuss houserules that you would use/want in PF2, as well as a place for me to catalog and organize my own thoughts on houserules. I'm going to list out the houserules I intend to use when running the Playtest, and anyone can feel free to comment on them or list their own prospective houserules.

A few ground rules:

Don't post about if/how you think someone's houserules are bad. If a houserule is one you wouldn't use then of course that's fair but these are rules people would use at their own tables and it generally really isn't anyone's place to tell someone else what would or would not work for their own groups. That said constructive feedback is welcome if you have an idea to expand on or possibly improve what a given rule is going for, as is stating if you find a houserule to be something you might use yourself.

If the PF2 Playtest is a system you would not play/GM even with houserules or alterations then please refrain from posting about it here. Your opinion is perfectly valid, but this is a place for discussing changes for actual play, not whether or not someone will play.

I know full well +level is a hot-button issue around here. If your houserule involves altering or removing +level then please say such with a decent amount of brevity. Dissertations on +level are a valid opinion but the place is elsewhere. Likewise if someone posts an opinion against (Or for) +level in their houserule then there is no call to start debate over whether or not you agree with the opinion. Again, there are places for it but this isn't one of them.

Just in general be civil. Everyone knows what is and isn't civil, and I hope to have this thread be productive and constructive rather than negative and argumentative. I'm not trying to create a positive echo chamber or anything, but there is plenty of negativity going on the forums to where there is no risk of that, but this particular thread is meant to be a positive one.

So, on to the houserules!

While feat chains are less abundant than in PF1, I'm not overly fond of the ones that do exist in PF2. So I'm consolidating many down. For example the Brutish Shove feat will automatically grant the effects of Improved Brutish Shove at an appropriate level, Counterspell will also grant Reflect Spell at 14th level, Monk Style feats will grant their follow-ups, etc. I feel that in general classes could use a bit more feat access but I already tried running a non-DD session with just extra feats handed out and while fun it was a bit of a mess. I think consolidating like this to avoid levels where you feel compelled to pick a certain feat because it is an extension of an earlier choice is a more elegant solution.

In a similar vein, some class paths will be expanded. For example Barbarians will automatically get the feats with their totem as a prerequisite at the appropriate level (I will need to think of an equivalent for Rage totem. Possibly being able to take lower-level effects from other totems similarly to the Universalist Wizard's level 8 feat.). Wizards get their advanced school power at 8 automatically, Sorcerers will probably get their bloodline powers for free again but keep their level 6 and 10 feat slots, Druids will get Order feats automatically, etc.

Resonance will be slightly altered. No longer do potions and elixirs cost RP (Likely exception is given to repeated use of a Dragon's Breath Potion). Most if not all items with limited uses per day will have that limit removed (The only one I am iffy on seems to be the single action Invisibility armor rune). However items may have a 10 minute cooldown a la Ring of the Ram and Spider Climb.

Any use of a magic or alchemical item that requires RP and has a set DC will have that DC raised to the user's Class DC (Or possibly spell DC for casters) if that is higher. You are expending the same resource for a level 1 item as you are a level 20 item, and the higher level item already has stronger effects, so I see little cause to penalize the lower level item further with an unusable DC.

If an item has a DC but does not require Resonance (Potions, elixirs, and poisons namely) you may spend 1 RP while using them to raise the DC to your class DC as if it were a magic item using RP. This is partly to allow lower level poisons to be used at higher level, again with the same reasoning of using a daily resource that is the same regardless of item level.

All uses of Hero Points are reduced to costing 1 hero point, hero points reset to 1 each session (Maybe, not sure on that) and cannot go above 3, but are now handed out for doing cool stuff and not hard-capped per session.

I am buffing the Enfeebled condition as it's a bit weak compared to Sluggish. This is largely due to the flat damage penalty meaning very little at higher levels while the AC and Reflex penalties of Sluggish are very much still relevant. So the idea is for the damage penalty to be higher. After some thought what I think I'm going for is that Enfeebled applies a penalty to damage equal to the severity of the Enfeebled condition to each damage die rolled, but cannot reduce any individual die rolled below 1. If the attack does not roll dice, then it simply takes a flat penalty equal to the severity of the condition. This is what I felt was the best option to go with, after a fair bit of thought trying to make it in such a way that it was a significant damage penalty but not one that would completely cripple someone with a small die weapon and low Str. Making the lower cap on the Enfeebled penalty essentially equivalent to dealing minimum damage with the attack seemed fitting, and applying the penalty to each die individually with a minimum damage of 1 per die allows me to avoid some awkward phrasing I would have if I simply multiplied the condition level by the number of dice to get the penalty but still wanted to keep the same minimum damage cap.

In wishing to differentiate the damage types beyond where resistance and weakness apply (Admittedly this is partly done with certain weapon traits generally sticking to a given damage type, but I'd like to go further and also I don't think I can live in a universe where a battleaxe is almost always straight better than a Longsword. XD), as well as to make Versatile weapons a bit better, I'm adding a rule where any critical hit with an attack or critical failure against a damage spell will apply a minor status effect for 1 round depending on the damage type, as follows: (This is in addition to any critical specialization effect. IIRC though this means Spear needs a new effect)

Slashing: Sluggish 1

Piercing: Enfeebled 1

Bludgeoning: Stupefied 1 (Iffy because of its extra anti-mage effect above and beyond the other effects, but I'm not sure Drained is right either.)

Fire: Enfeebled 1

Electricity: Sluggish 1

Cold: Hampered 5 (10?)

Acid: Not sure yet, maybe Enfeebled 1?

Sonic: Stupefied 1? Sluggish 1?

Mental: Stupefied 1? Sluggish 1?

Positive/Negative: Considering Drained 1. It feels a bit stronger than the other conditions but Pos/Neg damage is fairly uncommon, plus the limited duration probably makes it less severe than Drained normally is. May consider Drained for other damage types (Bludgeoning perhaps) as well with this in mind.

Force: Probably nothing. Most force damage is auto-hit, and the ones that aren't, like Spiritual Weapon, give the option to use another damage type. No status effect on Force makes this choice less duh.

(The specific status effects for specific damage types is actually something I'm looking for feedback on)

Furthermore (Playing into my desire to make higher weapon/spell proficiency tiers do more than just a +1 to make them more interesting like what is done with skills), Expert proficiency with a weapon grants you access to a special activity which allows you to spend 2 actions to make a Strike that automatically inflicts the status effect on a hit (For Expert casters, they can add an action to casting and have the effect proc on a hit for attack spells or a failed save for others), and either inflicts a level 2 version of the effect or inflicts the effect for a 1-minute duration on a critical hit (Or fail for save spells). Not sure which of the two would be better.

Master proficiency would cause the normal crit effect (Normal hit effect on the 2-action attack) to be a level 2 version of the status or a 1-minute duration, with a crit on the 2-action attack applying the level 2 effect for 1 minute.

Legendary... I'm really not sure. The logical step coming off of the previous effects would be for a crit or a 2-action hit to apply the level 2 effect for 1 minute and for a 2-action crit to apply level 3, but that all seems a little too strong. I'm really not sure.

Also Expert proficiency automatically grants access to critical specialization effects for your weapon. There were only a few corner cases where this wasn't so, but I'm removing them for simplicity.

Similarly Master proficiency in a save grants Evasion or its equivalent for that save automatically, and Legendary does the same for Improved Evasion. Again, there were only a few cases where this wasn't so but I'm removing them and tying Evasion and its comrades directly to proficiency. Also this gives Monks an actual reason to bump a save to Legendary. Monks will also need something to replace their Second Path to Perfection as it is now redundant. I'll figure that out later.

ACP may well just be removed, speed reduction will likely be removed or reduced. I think armor is fine with equivalent Armor+Dex cap across the board, but I don't think heavy armor needs the penalties. It's already the hardest armor type to achieve, I don't think just having the benefit of needing less Dex for full defense merits the penalties. Also the Clumsy armor trait can screw right off, Noisy may be right behind it. Might try to actually work on some positive armor traits sine those worked so well for weapons, and heavy armor can have more traits to be better without throwing off the numbers.

I am also considering granting casters higher spell proficiency at earlier levels, but I'm not sure if or when I would do so,

So that's all the general houserules I have offhand, now for some class-specific bits: (Only stuff outside of the general feat and class path stuff from before will be listed)

Alchemists, ANY item with the infused trait has a minimum DC equal to the Alchemist's class DC. Potent Poisoner is redundant. This is another "The level 1 item already uses the same resource as the stronger level 20 item, why penalize it further?" deal.

Alchemists also either get access to mutagens regardless of path or get better access to an item bonus on attacks.

Barbarians, nothing yet except vaguely considering granting Expert armor proficiency somewhere.

Bards, they are now prepared casters. Their magic is now flavored as coming from pieces of music that they "Rehearse" each day in the way a caster prepares spells. This is partly to make it so that there is a prepared caster option for every magical tradition and partly to solidify Sorcerer as having the monopoly on spontaneous casting.

Clerics, I am currently working on a very WIP alternate version of Channel Energy that is detailed here:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42fb3?Looking-for-feedback-on-an-alternate-Cha nnel
(Apologies if this counts as using a thread to plug another thread, but just reposting that thread here in its entirety isn't exactly viable)

Druids, nothing yet.

Fighter, looking at expanding their armor proficiency boosts to be equal across all armor weights.

Monk, need a new feature to replace Second Path to Perfection.

Paladins, the Step-Strike and ranged Strike effects of Ranged Reprisal are automatic. Ranged Reprisal instead grants the ability to Stride up to half your speed to make the Retributive Strike. I may look at further tweaks to this and the other Reaction-boosting feats (They do seem like something I would make automatic due to how much of a duh choice they are), but I have not seen a 1.6 Paladin in action so I don't know them well yet. Also, Righteous Ally (But not Second Ally) may be one of those things where I give the follow-up feats automatically. If I do this the I probably won't do the same for the Paladin Reaction feats.

Ranger, Snares will automatically hit Class DC and will likely gain stronger versions, possibly incorporating the stronger alchemical bombs from 1.6. Also will likely gain Expert armor proficiency.

Rogue, going to give them some TWF support, possibly something like Twin Takedown but without the hunted target requirement, or possibly just Double Slice. Also possibly Expert armor proficiency.

Sorcerer, probably going to give additional spontaneous heightening, likely scaling with level. I'm not quite sold on automatically being able to spontaneously heighten anything but I am considering it.

Wizard, don't really have anything. I think they are in a good place.

And I think that's it! At least, that is all of the houserules I have in mind that I can think of right now. Looking forward to seeing what others have come up with!

As per the title, I'm looking to make an altered version of the Cleric's channel energy, one that offers more options but is changed to be more in line with school slots and bloodline spell slots than being several top-level spells per day.

A preemptive note, this is being designed to be used with a houserule of mine that spells whose purpose is solely to counteract a specific thing (Such as Remove Paralysis and Remove Fear) make their counteract attempts with a counteract level 1 higher than the spell level. However this houserule is not required for this channel system.

Channel Energy:

Clerics are powerful divine agents, capable of channeling divine power to bring healing or harm to their allies or enemies, depending on their divine source.

Each Cleric gains the ability to channel positive or negative energy, determined by their deity (some deities provide a choice between the two, this choice must be made at 1st level and can only be changed by retraining). This grants the Cleric one extra spell slot of every level of spell he can cast. However, instead of preparing a spell in this slot as with his other slots this slot is used to spontaneously cast spells from a select list, depending on which type of energy the Cleric channels.

The Cleric may cast a spell of a lower level using a higher level channeling spell slot, in which case the spell is heightened to the level of the slot used to cast it.

The spells the Cleric can use with their channel energy slots are as follows:

(Note here, some of the spells here will have a ? after them, these are ones I was unsure if it would work out well to put in. The others I am fairly sure of my choices on, but these are on the fence. Most or all of these spells will have a quick note on why I quastion them and/or why I am considering them.)

(Also note, this does provide access to some Uncommon spells. This is not unheard of for a class feature as some bloodlines provide access to one or more uncommon spells but it still should be noted as this is a bit more widely accessed within its class.)

Positive Channeling:

Level 0: Stabilize.

Level 1:Heal, Bless(?) (A buff rather than a cure, but a classic support spell).

Level 2: Calm Emotions, Remove Fear, Restoration, Restore Senses.

Level 3: Neutralize Poison, Remove Disease, Dispel Magic (?) (The reason this one is on for consideration is because there are a lot of debuffs that would only be removable by Restoration or Dispel Magic, but are too short in duration to use Restoration on. It feels proper for positive channeling to be able to take a shot at negating short term debuffs like this, but the issue is that Dispel also has a host of other uses that fall outside of my intentions for Channeling, which is why it's in question.).

Level 4: Remove Curse.

Level 5: Death Ward (?) (It's a buff rather than a cure, but one that suppresses a powerful debuff and does some very Cleric-y things), Breath of Life (?) (In question because it's a very strong option, but a fitting one, and I suppose it isn't likely to come up too often but always having a death-save as long as you have channel slots of level 5+ may be a bit much.).

Level 6: Raise Dead, True Seeing (?) (A buff, but one that is essentially a cure for illusions.), Stone to Flesh (?) (Only iffy because it is an auto-cure for its niche rather than any kind of counteract attempt.), Divine Inspiration (?) (Seems like a nice support option, but may lie outside of the intended use of Channel. If incorporated would also come with houserule that heightening increases the level of regained spell accordingly.).

Level 7: Regenerate.

Level 8: Moment of Renewal.

Level 9: Revival.

Negative Channeling:

(As may become readily apparent, a lot of spells here are picked as antitheses of spells on the positive list, or as things that cause effects that are counteracted by spells on positive channel's list. They aren't all mirror-picks, but many are. Just noting this.)

Level 0: Daze.

Level 1: Harm, Fear, Ray of Enfeeblement, Bane (?) (Incorporation depends on whether or not positive channel gets Bless, as it's intended as a counterpart spell.).

Level 2: Deafness, Ghoulish Cravings, Death Knell (?) (Seems fitting but I wonder if it's a bit early level to hand out a finisher move like this. But then again any Cleric can just prepare this, it's not even marked as Evil anymore, so maybe I'm just being paranoid.), Silence (?) (A nice debuff but it seems a bit out of place among some of the others.).

Level 3: Blindness, Crisis of Faith (?) (More of a damage spell than a debuff, but can potentially hamper divine casting which is fitting.), Dispel Magic (Similar deal to Dispel on Positive, this can nix buffs which seems negative channel-worthy, but hass a lot of options outside of that scope.).
Vampiric Touch (Certainly not a debuff, but negative channel-y as all heck.).

Level 4: Enervation, Outcast's Curse.

Level 5: Abyssal Plague.

Level 6: Spellwrack, Repulsion (?) (Seems like a Negative bringer-of-woe thing to do, but also seems out of place. Especially since a lot of what you want to do with negative channeling involves someone coming close enough to curse or debuff or what have you.).

Level 7: Leng's Sting, Finger of Death (?) (Fittingly Negative, and an antithesis of sorts to revival magic, but also more of a direct attack than almost anything on here, and I'm not sure about anything beyond Harm that's more of just a direct attack than a debuff or an affliction.).

Level 8: Spiritual Epidemic. (Antimagic Field was on here as an iffy spell as it's like the ultimate hampering spell but also bones you, but then I realized just before tying it that it's Rare, so it can't rightly be granted by a class feature like this.)

Level 9: Wail of the Banshee, Bind Soul (?) (VERY negative-y, but also kinda useless as a debuff, it's really just a posthumous Screw You.)

And lastly one other thing for consideration. I like the idea of bringing in some spells from other lists for negative channeling, mostly spells that cause poisons, diseases, or curses. This would give Negative channel decidedly more spell options than Positive channel, but this makes sense as there is kind of only one way to nix a poison, disease, or curse, but there really should be more than one way to cause such. The divine list has only 1 poison spell and it's level 7. There are 2 diseases and 3 curses which is decent, but more would be nice IMO. So what follows is a list of spells from other lists I am considering adding to negative channeling. Some of these spells may have less merit than ones previously listed, as this is a lot more of a maybe list than a seriously considered one. For this spot I figured it was better to list more ideas even if they're bad than to hold in reserve ideas that may have been good. I also won't be listing reasons for all of them because it's late, I'm tired, and I don't have time for that. XD
Though I will put an asterisk by any options I consider as particularly worthwhile candidates.

Level 1: Goblin Pox*, Spider Sting*, Phantom Pain.

Level 2: Sound Burst, Touch of Idiocy*.

Level 3: Paralyze*.

Level 4: Confusion, Phantasmal Killer.

Level 5: Mariner's Curse*.

Level 6: Flesh to Stone*, Purple Worm Sting*, Feeblemind*, Synthesia.

Level 7: Mask of Terror*, Warp Mind.

Level 8: Polar Ray.

Level 9: Unfathomable Song*, Weird.

Alright, if you made it this far then thank you so much for looking over all of this! I am looking for feedback on any aspect of this idea, but in particular the merits or demerits of the spell choices, especially the ones I put into question as well as the cross-class spell potential.

Oh, and one last bit, this system decouples Channel from Cha and IDK how big of a deal that is for people. But I was considering making it so having a Cha score of 16 or higher gives you an extra channel slot of your highest level (Or second highest with level 1 minimum if highest would be too much). This seems reasonable as it can be gotten out of the gate with focus or at mid levels fairly casually, and it keeps a connection to Cha but by not having an effect that increases directly with modifier you aren't pressured to super-pump Cha to get more.

Thanks again in advance for the feedback!

As the title, I think I'm going to be phasing out of the forums here. This isn't a "Paizo did something I don't like so now I'm leaving" or anything, it's a bit more pragmatic than that.

I've been spending loads of time on these forums lately, and I really kinda need that time elsewhere.

Furthermore, a large portion of my time on these forums has been defending various decisions Paizo has made with the Playtest to people who dislike them to varying degrees, which is the main thing that has kept me here as with all the negativity about certain things I wanted to provide advocation and argument for why I and my group have found those things to be very good and why I think they are good for the game.

However, basically all of the things that I have been defending have had likely final-ish calls made on them to alter them quite a bit, and as such there is little reason for me to continue defending these things as they are changing anyway and nothing I say about them is likely to change Paizo's mind as they've set their courses (and with plenty of reason, I have no doubt).

There's little point spending hours defending why +level to Untrained makes the game more fun for me and my group, as it is leaving.

There's little point spending hours talking about how spells have been seriously effective for my group and feel great as-is, as they are getting buffed.

There's little point spending hours explaining how I believe having a 50-65% hit chance depending on build and class against on-level foes and having to use buffs, debuffs, and tactics to push and cajole into the upper echelons of hit chance reaching 75-95% is one of the absolute best changes of the Playtest and is an excellent base balance point for the math to be fixed into, because there is indication that that base balance point is getting bumped upwards.

With there being little reason to continue in my main activities on the forum and main reason for watching so closely around here, I've decided to back of more fully and find other uses for that time (It's not like I have any shortage of areas IRL that could use some extra time XD). I will still peek in here sometimes and watch for official news or interesting topics, and I eagerly await the PF2 CRB to see what has transpired between the Playtest and there, but I'm gonna be keeping a fair bit more of a distance, at least until the CRB hits.

And LET ME BE CLEAR, this is no complaint against Paizo. I've loved sticking around through the testing and creative process, and while I may have felt a bit stung by some of the changes from the latest Twitch stream I heard, I recognize that all I am seeing is a cursory desription of these changes off of the forums, and I don't have a clue how it will look in the final product. Maybe Paizo will implement them so freaking well I will love it to bits, even more than the Playtest. Or maybe it will be a bit off to me and the game I want just isn't quite what Paizo or most people looking at the game are going for and I'll end up tweaking things. I don't know, but I do know Paizo is doing their utmost to make the best game they can with the vision they have, and I'm thrilled to see what the final product looks like and wish them all the best!

I will understand if this thread gets locked fairly quick, as I expect there isn't too much productive discussion to be had off of this but I wanted to get all this out there, as well as provide explanation for any disappearing from active topics I may do.

I may still find time and motivation to finish my group's Part 7 writeup, but I'm not sure. I probably won't have the time or drive to do the writeups of earlier chapters (Except Part 5 which is already on the forum) from my memories, but that was a stretch even when I was sticking around. I do wish I'd started doing those from the get-go, as I think they would have drawn some good discussion. Our group has had some of the very best reception of and success with the Playtest of anything I have seen on this forum, quite possibly even up there with how well things have gone for Deadmanwalking's group.

Maybe I could do like a quicker, more casual, and less hand-hurting audio recording of our thoughts or something, or maybe even do a group recording and link to it on here! Just thought of that, I might actually do it.

And it bears mentioning again, my group has LOVED the Playtest and can't wait for the final product! Thank you so much to Paizo for all your hard work, innovation, and not being afraid to try new stuff!

So with that, I do believe I am out of here for the most part. My thanks to all the people I have discussed and debated with on here, and especially to Paizo!

Until the CRB, goodbye and God Bless!

Probably should've posted this a couple weeks ago when I noticed it, but yeah. Level 9 Monstrous Form has a listed AC of 29. I assume this is meant to be 39, given that 29 is much lower than the level 8 version and 39 would be appropriate for that level, but thought I should mention it.

Okay, so I've already run my party through the first 2 fights of Chapter 7 and they are about to enter Ramlock's workshop. I adjusted the Rune Giant fight by adding an extra but did not actually adjust the Star-Spawn fight (Which turned out for the best, as it would have made our session run too late if it was any stronger. As it was we dispatched the Star-Spawn in good time).

I've already worked out to adjust the Shoggoth fight by having a Deh-Nolo stumble into the room when combat begins, that being an appropriate EXP addition.

Where I'm doing some more complicated work is on the fight with Aeteperax. This fight has 2 potential iterations, depending on if Necerion survived chapter 7. However I am handling it juuust a little differently due to an in-joke with my party, as I will explain in a moment.

Fight version 1 is Aeteperax (Level 18) and 3 Deh Nolos (Level 14). This fight is 105 EXP, almost right between high and severe. Adjusting for a fifth payer should take it to 130-135. So I am going to add a resurrected or cloned Necerion (With the strong template since it has been a couple years. This makes him level 16, adding 30 EXP to the fight, roughly appropriate for the extra player adjustment). The reason I'm doing this is because we had a big laugh and several jokes over the fact that Necerion is a Rare creature, not Unique, implying there is more than one of him. One of my players has already jokingly commented he expects to come across another Necerion, so I'm going with it since it conveniently fits the adjustment I need.

Where the real consideration I'm going with is in fight version 2. Normally this is only if Necerion survived Part 6 (He didn't in my group, the Kraken killed him as he failed a flat check to Dimension Door away when he was grabbed), but I've decided that I'm going to throw this version of the fight in if my players rest up in the safe room in the workshop instead of going on to Aeteperax the same day as they fight the Shoggoth. I figure the fight would raise a ruckus so their enemies would ready themselves for a fight and if it isn't forthcoming then they would gather reinforcements.

Normally the fight is Aeteperax (18), 5 Deh Nolos (14), and Necerion (15). This is 155 EXP, borderline Extreme battle. For the 5 player adjustment I was just going to add the Strong template to Necerion and add 2 more Deh Nolos, upping the fight by 40 EXP, still just short of Extreme for a 5 player party.

So this would be Aeteperax (60 XP), Necerion (30 XP), and 7 Deh Nolos (15 XP each, 195 total).

But then I had a couple cool ideas to make the fight more of a climactic last stand of the Night Heralds.

First, making one of the Deh Nolos Strong and flavoring it as a resurrected Ilvoresh (This does push us to 200 XP, a true Severe battle, but I know my party can do it).

Second, Dropping two of the Deh Nolos for Hevah the Antipaladin at Level 16. This is an equivalent XP change, and my players have always been curious about the Night Heralds from Part 2 that they never fought (They were like 3 days ahead in that scenario).

Third, dropping one or two Deh Nolos for a level 14 or 16 creature reskinned as a re-resurrected Hidimbi (Possibly with adjustment to add that sandstorm breath and a Despair Aura.

Now this does seem to take the number of enemies down too much, leaving Ilvoresh and only 2 or 3 other Deh Nolos. I'd like there to be at least 5 Deh Nolos counting Ilvoresh so I may make Hevah level 14 and only drop 1 Deh Nolo instead of 2 or drop Hidimbi altogether, IDK.

I want the fight to be 2 or 3 tough cookies and 4 or 5 significantly weaker enemies so they have a big challenge but also have enemies with a big numerical disadvantage they can go crit-happy on and blast with Meteor Swarm and Chain Lightning and crap. XD

So I'm looking for opinions on if these changes to the Severe fight seem like they are too divergent, which options on the specific changes seem better, etc.

I don't want to diverge too greatly from the written Playtest but I need to make an adjustment to the encounter and I'm kind of left at liberty on how to do so so I feel like pulling a couple of exchanges instead of just straight additions while still keeping the original 4-player encounter mostly intact is fair enough if it'll result in a more hype fight for my party.

I mean in the end, mechanically, the original fight of Aeteperax, Necerion, and a total of 5 Deh Nolos is almost exactly still there, just one Deh Nolo may be removed, another may be buffed and flavored as Ilvoresh, and Necerion may be buffed. So in the end most of the actual changes are just a matter of hat I choose to add for the 5 player adjustment now that I think about it.

Still interested in feedback though!

As the title. This thread doesn't have any great point, just that crit damage is a lot more fun to me now that attacks tend to involve more dice. I favor it to just rolling an extra 2d6 at most and then doubling a huge modifier.

The particular case that brought this up, I started running When The Stars Go Dark about a week ago. First round of the first fight our Rogue critted an enemy while invisible.

Normally her sneak attacks are solid. She had 23 Dex and a Legendary +4 Greater Shock Filcher's Fork, so she deals 5d4+6d6+9 damage on a hit (5d4 base, 4d6 sneak, 2d6 shock, 6 Dex, 3 Backstabber). But her crit did a whopping 10d4+15d6+18 (All the previous dice doubled plus 3d6 from deadly d6)! She did a massive 106 damage with that crit and everyone loved it. (Average damage on that is 95.5 so she rolled a bit above but still)

So yeah, just saying I like these big-dice crits, they're hype. Even the less many-dice crit, like a +4 Greatsword critting for 10d12+12, are awesome. I know some people aren't a fan of the many dice because it can slow things down but I'm actually really quick at adding up dice so it works great for our group.

As the title, I was making an NPC for a campaign I want to do (A PF2 revamp of the first game I ever ran, with the application of my experience in the years since then) and it's an Elemental Bloodline Ifrit Sorcerer. So I was thinking what the Elemental Bloodline might look like (I bet we'll get it in the CRB but I'm impatient) and made a potential initial bloodline power. Costs 1 spell point, naturally.

Elemental Surge
Power 1
1 action (Verbal)
Duration 1 minute or until dismissed

The next spell you cast that deals damage has one of the following effects:

If the spell deals damage of a type other than your element, you may change any amount of that spell's damage to your element.

If the spell deals damage of your element, increase the damage by 2.

Both effects can occur on one spell, for example if a fire elemental Sorcerer casts a spell that does both fire and bludgeoning damage you would increase the damage by 2 and could change any amount of the bludgeoning damage to fire damage.

The applicable effects are determined by the damage type of the unmodified spell, so for example a fire elemental Sorcerer casting a spell dealing only cold damage and changing it to fire would not grant the damage boost.

Heightened (+1): Increase the damage boost by 2.

I have a couple reservations about the specifics but I like the idea of this. I'm not sure if the damage boost is too strong, it's intentionally stronger than Dangerous Sorcery though because it costs a resource. Also it scales with your level, not with the spell's level, so it can get some mileage out of lower level slots.

And I don't know if the "Change any amount of the damage" part is too fiddly, but I wasn't sure "Half or all" was right either but didn't want it to just automatically turn the spell entirely to your element.

If anyone has thoughts on this I'd be happy to hear them!

Okay, so there are a few questions I have about how bombs work in play:

First, splash damage. I've seen a few comments on the forum referring to it "being clarified that the direct target of a bomb takes splash damage as well". Is this to mean that, say, I throw a Liquid Ice and hit someone, they take 1d4+1 damage instead of just 1d4, or is it just clarifying that if you miss (but not crit miss), your direct target still takes splash damage, not just other creatures within the blast range?

I had assumed the latter but I would love it to be the former. Plus the latter has the odd situation where you could throw an Acid Flask at a foe with 1 HP left and if you hit he wouldn't die until the end of his next turn (Since the flask only deals persistent damage), but if you missed then the splash would kill him then and there?

(That actually prompts another quick question, if someone is hit with persistent damage, do they take the damage then AND at the end of each turn, or none on the initial hit, only at the end of his turns? I had assumed the latter, but again unsure)

Second, if you crit with an Acid Flask, does it double the persistent damage each time it procs? Similar question for other effects that have persistent damage tacked on. Seems awfully strong if it does. Though if I'm wrong about he previous note and persistent damage does damage on the initial hit that's easier to infer, presumably it would do double on the persistent damage but not later procs I guess?

Third, the Goblin's Burn It feat. Does it apply its bonus to the splash damage of bombs? I know it doesn't up persistent damage (beyond the +1 granted specifically to persistent fire damage by the feat), but I don't know about splash. Now if the answer to my first question is that direct bomb hits also add their splash damage, I assume it would still only get the bonus once, similar to Dangerous Sorcery.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can answer these! I've had an Alchemist in my 1/4/7 Doomsday Dawn party and it's only coming up here in part 7 just how many little things I'm unsure about with bombs. They've proved to be an awesome feature, even with the less-favorable rulings of these questions, but I still need to figure this stuff out.

So I'm wondering, if you are invisible and a creature has See Invisibility, can you still attempt to stealth against them? See Invisibility makes invisible creatures and objects "appear as translucent shapes", and they are still treated as Concealed. Since you are still Concealed even when they have See Invisibility, can you make Hide checks to become Sensed and Stealth checks to become Unseen? Theoretically this makes sense, the translucent shapes thing makes it sound like they can't see you well, so you could theoretically use your stealth skills to slip out of proper visibility, just as if you were standing in dim light being observed by someone who doesn't have low light or darkvision.

As far as I know this is allowed, and it makes sense, and as far as I know there is no indicator in the spell or elsewhere that the concealment occurring as a result of this spell is any different than regular concealment. But despite that there is still the nagging thought that this is like PF1 Blur and Displacement kind of thing where someone has concealment/total concealment but can't use it to stealth.

Okay, so I doubt to the title question is legitimately yes, but see, during one session when I was checking something, I suddenly burst out laughing so much that I got odd looks from my players. I then explained to them that I realized something hilarious when looking over Necerion's stat block.

He is marked as a Rare creature.

Not Unique.

The specific individual is marked as Rare rather than Unique. Does he have freaking clones somewhere? Do I need to be worried? XD

Well, as the title may imply the group I GM has finally finished Heroes of Undarin.

And I do mean they finished it, not the other way arond.

So I'm gonna do a writeup on how the heck this all came about as while I do believe the primary factor here was my players' tenacity and resourcefulness, there were also definitely some very lucky moments and some various things that may well fall to table variance and such to where if any of these things were absent it may not have turned out so well.

EDIT: Looking over this now I realize this writeup is really long. Just wanted to give fair warning. In fact I'm going to go through right now and use spoilers to compact and sort it, hopefully without the site messing up on me this time.

EDIT 2: Done!

I'm going to start out with an outline of the party and their key abilities and gear, as well as a general overview of their capabilities, style, and contributions before going into details about each individual fight and break. I'm going to be writing them out in a general pattern of general PC positioning, monster initiation, possibly general opening action of one or both sides, and then deeper explanation of each type of monster's actions followed by each player. I'm not sure how fluidly this will read but it is by far the easiest way to organize my memories with the lack of remembering the exact details. However at the end of this whole thing I will try to do a short narrative of each fight for those interested in just how the fights went/looked rather than all the details I can remember. Failing that I will make and pin a comment with said narrative when I have a chance, assuming I can figure out pinning.

That said, this chapter took us 4 in person sessions and 3 special midweek Skype sessions (The midweek sessions being necessary to keep this from taking even longer IRL) for a total of 4 weeks to get through this gauntlet, and as such my memory of specifics may be failing slightly on early fights resulting in more general descriptions. In case anyone is curious, it went:

Session 1, initial roleplay, temple survey, and wave 1.

2, wave 2 and most of wave 3.

3, the rest of wave 3 and wave 4.

4, wave 5.

5, wave 6.

6, most of wave 7.

7, rest of wave 7, wave 8, wave 9, and ending.

As an initial note, the players were made aware as per the character creation guidelines that they were to be hardened crusaders and were being hired on to fight in the Worldwound. Everyone deduced demons from that and prepared accordingly.

Well, with that out of the way, on to the session proper:

(PS I haven't had time to write the shorter narrative versions of the fights yet, I will do so ASAP but I REALLY want to get this out now because I have been working on this on and off for hours literally ALL WEEK.

Okay, as per the title I noticed recently that the 5+ players additions on a couple of the Heroes of Undarin battles add more proportionally to the enemies than the player addition warrants. I'll go through each one here to illustrate.

And yes I know the point of HoU is to cause a TPK with near-certainty but I think it's important to do so with as much class as possible and to keep that "Near" in there. XD

Battle 1, four level 10 fiends. This is equivalent to one level -2 foe per player. Each additional player you add one more, still one level -2 per player. Perfectly fine.

Battle 2, two level 13 fiends. This is the equivalent of four level 11 fiends, one level -1 foe per player. Five players you add a level 11 fiend, six you add a level 13 fiend instead of the level 11. Both add the same percentage to the enemy side as we added to the player side. All good.

Battle 3, a level 12 fiend and four level 7 fiends. This one is a little odd because it's a really easy fight and EXP only calculates as far down as level -4. So lets call the level 7 fiends level 8 fiends. Four level 8s and a level 12 is equal to four level 10s, equivalent to a level -2 foe per player. Each additional player adds three level 7 fiends. This is actually a little more proportionally but this one doesn't matter as it's a piss-easy fight.

Battle 4, four level 9 undead. Equivalent to a level -3 foe per player. Add one more of these per player, all good.

Battle 5, a level 12 undead and two level 10 undead. This is equivalent to four level 10s, or one level -2 foe per player. Add another level 10 foe per extra player, still good.

Battle 6, this is the first one with an issue. One level 15 undead, and a bunch of level 6 undead who are way too weak to count into EXP but they do provide a debuff so bear them in mind even though they aren't counted. One level 15 is equivalent to four level 11s, so one level -1 foe per player. But for each additional player you add a level 13 undead. This throws the balance, to keep the encounter proportional it should be a level 11 undead per player. If you have 6 players, putting this up against the EXP chart shows that this takes the fight from one level -1 foe per player to one =level foe per player, what would be called a toss-up fight. If you had 5 it would be between the two but more than 6 players would take it above even a toss-up (Granted parties over 6 are rare and a nightmare to run but that's beside the point) And that's ignoring the stupid debuffing corpses. This fight may well have done my players in if they hadn't had some excellent luck at a crucial moment but even so it left most of them with Drained debuffs that are really gonna hurt later. Giving the level 13 undead in this fight the Weak template wouldn't quite fix the scaling (They'd need enough nerfing for CR -2 rather than -1, not sure if double-applying Weak works like that) but it would keep this from pushing past a toss-up.

Battle 7, two level 14 fiends. Equivalent to four level 12 fiends, or one =level foe per player. A toss-up fight. But for each extra player you add three level 10 fiends. This pushes it above toss-up immediately, going further with every player. To keep it at the toss-up level it would need to be two level 10 fiends instead of three per player. This one can maybe be explained away by the fact that those fiends are specified in the AP to forgo the use of a powerful ability they have unless certain conditions are met and maybe that's considered to nerf them enough but I'm not sure if that's so.

Battle 8, four level 11 fiends. Each extra player adds one more. Perfectly fine.

Battle 9, one level 16 fiend. Equivalent to four level 12 fiends. Another toss-up, and a dangerous one. This one struck me because it actually has no listed adjustment for additional players. While this thread is about the over-adjusted encounters it's only fair to mention this too. Maybe it's because if fight 8 takes too long he shows up during it and thus has backup, maybe he's thought to just plain be tough enough to handle a larger party as-is, maybe the devs thought that if you got this far you deserve a "break", or maybe they just really wanted this to end with a solo boss but pumping him up for extra players would just make him nigh-invincible to each player because of how this game works. No clue but wanted to mention it anyway.

So yeah. Most of the encounter adjustments are perfect but I really wanted to bring to attention the ones that aren't because they are the only place where the fights ever go beyond a toss-up (Battle 6 for 7+ players exceeding toss-up and Battle 7 fr anything over 4 exceeding toss-up). I know HoU is an endurance march destined to almost surely end in failure but with these sole exceptions it NEVER does this by putting up an individual battle that is theoretically above the party's ability. It gives multiple fights that land right even with the party's ability but never over. And I just don't want my players (A party of 6) to die to a potentially unfair challenge after coming so far. Unfortunately I'm getting this posted for discussion far later than I wanted, I'm probably going to be running Battle 7 with them ovre Skype tonight, and that's the main overtuned one, so I've gotta figure out what to do.

Again, Heroes of Undarin spoilers!

...Okay, that's done. Now I'd like to provide the framework leading to this example so please bear with me.

So I've been kinda agonizing over the fact that my party may get TPKed in HoU as per the intent of the AP. I honestly think they'll accept it, my group are all close friends of mine and they get this is a playtest. But at the same time they have been doing EXCELLENT, they just got through the Lich fight and it's been the first one that drew more than a very minor amount of their daily resources. I'm pretty sure they'll handle the Demilich plus Banshees without too much trouble and I expect the Boar Demons plus Wrath Demons and the Toad Demons to go down easily enough also. But after all that I think the Shemhazian has a very real chance of killing them all. And I don't want them to get so far and have the rug pulled.

So I've worked out an extra scenario I'll add if this happens. This is separate from the Playtest process, for all reporting purposes the adventure will have ended with the TPK. But this is for the purpose of keeping this adventure from leaving more of a bad feeling than necessary.

So the idea is to cut to my players' Part 1/4 characters as they finally obtain the White Axiom. They will then go beat up the fiends that downed their protectors. But of course my players haven't leveled them to 17, and at level 9 they're no match of course. So I'm ping to have the Axiom briefly empower them to about the level of 14th level characters. And here's where I loved the math. I was able to create functional and reasonably accurate ad box stats and abilities for a party of 5 14th level characters INSIDE OF A LESS THAN ONE HOUR LUNCH BREAK. The stats aren't perfect but they're pretty close to what the players would look like at that level. I gave them enough of a smattering of abilities and spells around their level to last for the scenario. It's not perfect but it will work for the purpose and I LOVE it because this also transfers to other things like making NPC allies and enemies in home brew games and it's SO much quicker than PF1 and I love it!

And that's about it for my piece.

So in GMing HoU I'm finally seeing a Paladin in extensive combat application and I'm finally seeing that while it's far from never happening it is actually fairly difficult to get off Retributive Strike, simply because even if you're camping by an ally it requires them to get attacked from a direction that you can reach the enemy from. So I got thinking on this and it gave me a though.

What if Retributive Strike's trigger and effect allowed you to use it as long as the foe attacking an ally is in a position where you could get in attack reach with a single Stride, allowing you to stride over to the foe and attack? I don't think it would be overpowered, and it'd allow the Paladin to serve as a much more effective defender by being able to cover allies without having to stay in arm's reach.

Alternatively it could just be simplified to something like "An enemy within 30 feet hits or critically hits an ally or friendly creature", and allows you to move to land the attack as long as you can reach the target with a single Stride. This changed description would allow archer Paladins to work with it though it would prevent Elf and Half-Elf Paladins from getting longer range. I think that's alright though.

The idea could probably use some polish but I think it'd make Retributive Strike MUCH more commonly used without increasing its technical maximum potential (That is it will never let you get off more than one off-turn attack).

So this is a little more of a personal anecdote than anything. When the new table 10-2 came out I saw discussion that now for a skill you completely maximized (Max ability score, proficiency rank, and item) your success rate on Hard difficulty on-level tasks would increase from its 55% at level 1 to about 85% at 20th. And looking at the new table 10-2 I didn't get this. The max for a skill is +35 and the DC I saw for High Level 20 was 45. 55% success still. But today I looked at it and randomly noticed, the table goes up to freaking level 23. I was just automatically looking at the last entry and assuming it was 20. I'm a moron. The High level 20 DC is actually 39, an 85% success rate with +35. Which even keeps a decent success rate at lower levels of specialization, which is nice.

So yeah, feeling way better about 10-2 now. I'm an idiot. That is all.

So I posted basically this same thing as a comment on a Heroes of Undarin post but this is something I've wanted to make a proper post on for a while in hopes of getting some good discussion on it.

I hear it said a lot that +1 bonuses/penalties (and other small bonuses) don't matter much and getting one active is usually subpar to other options as it's only a 5% increase to your chances, or it only adds 1 success every 20 tries. But I think that something very easily overlooked is the -relative- increase an extra success every 20 tries brings, and also the fact that if your success is already 55% or higher then each +1 adds one critical every 20 tries, not just one success every 20 tries. This post gives some illustration of both matters. I am just pasting my recent comment from that post here as it properly covers the topic to the degree I intended and I'm limited in time so please forgive the slightly awkward transition restating some of what I just said.

A thought on the supposition that +1 is only a 5% improvement because it just adds one success every 20 tries, consider that the effectiveness of a +1 actually depends on how likely you were already to succeed.

Let's take for example two Fighters with and without Bless. One hits his current foe on 10, 15, and 20. This is a 50% success and 5% crit, 25% success and 5% crit, and 5% Crit. With Bless this becomes 9, 14, and 19. So now it's 50% success 10% crit, 30% success 5% crit, and 5% success 5% crit.

The other hits his current foe on 5, 10, and 15. This is 50% success and 30% crit, 50% success and 5% crit, and 25% success and 5% crit. With Bless it becomes 4, 9, and 14. Now it's 50% success 35% crit, 5% success 10% crit, and 30% success 5% crit.

Now we measure how many hits each Fighter will land every 20 uses
of each of his attacks statistically speaking, and how many he would land with Bless. Crits are counted as two hits since almost everything doubles on a crit and to keep this simple.

Fighter a, his first attack will hit 10 times and crit once in 20 uses. So 12/20. Second attack will hit 5 times and crit once. 7/20. Third+ will crit once. 2/20.

With Bless Fighter a will first hit 10 times and crit twice, 14/20. Second hit 6 times and crit once, 8/20. Third+ hit once and crit once, 3/20.

The first attack sees a 1/6 increase (about 17%) in damage output, the second a 1/7 (about 14%) increase, and the third+ a whopping 1/2 (50%) increase! Interestingly the first attack gains a bigger relative boost due to gaining one crit every 20 strikes instead of one hit every 20. But in any case this is far more than a 5% or 1/20 improvement.

Fighter b, his first attack will hit 10 times and crit 6, 22/20. Second attack hits 10 times and crits once, 12/20. Third attack hits 5 times and crits once, 7/20.

With Bless his first attack hits 10 times and crits 7, 24/20. Second attack hits 10 times and crits 2, 14/20. Third attack hits 6 times and crits once, 8/20.

So here we see that the bonuses have diminishing returns when your success rate gets much higher, the first attack only having a 1/11 increase (about 9%). The second has a 1/6 increase (about 17%) and the third a 1/7 (about 14%), these are the same as the first and second attacks of Fighter a because of the specific example numbers I chose.

As an aside a Fighter with 50% accuracy (9 hits and 1 crit, 11/20) getting a +1 sees a similarly small increase to Fighter b's first attack here, going to 10 hit 1 crit, 12/20, a 1/11 increase or 9%. This is a blip in the math due to being the highest success rate where a +1 gives you an extra hit rather than an extra crit.

So all that said, the whole point of all this is to illustrate how a +1 is much more than a 5% boost. It's a 5% objective, that is it will take a 55 to a 60 and an 80 to an 85, but the effect it has on your actual damage output (Or your successes and critical successes on other rolls) definitely varies but is much more than 5%.

TL;DR, an extra success (or critical success) every 20 tries means different things depending on how many times you were succeeding and critting out of every 20 tries in the first place. It means more going from 5 successes to 6 than 9 to 10 for example. Which generally also means that buffs and debuffs are more effective when you stand in an underdog or middle ground position than if you're already ahead. But again, usually more than a 5% increase.

As the title implies, after seeing a thread discussing how you can't just go and make ridiculous numbers of attacks in a turn in PF2 and how honestly nice that is (GMed a quad-wielding Thri-Kreen once, it was a nightmare at times) I decided to see if that was really true, I wanted to see just how many attacks could possibly come in a turn. So here's my finding.

This sequence is only possible for a 14th+ level Fighter with the following:

Ranger Dedication
Multiclass feat to get Twin Takedown
The feat for all-day Hunt Target if you want to do this to more than one enemy per day
Twin Flurry (or Two Weapon flurry, can't remember. It's a 14th level Press feat.)
Desperate Finisher (I think that's the name)
Dual wielding, may require an agile weapon in off-hand.
Must NOT have the Fighter feat Agile Grace because Twin Flurry has an MAP requirement of -8.
Haste or other form of Quick that allows a Strike

So with all the build requirements met, the remaining requirement is that you start your turn adjacent to your hunted target, which means this has to be at least the second round of combat. Can't be wasting actions moving or hunting.

So with all that met, here's the unholy action routine:

Action 1, Twin Takedown. Attacks twice with both attacks functioning normally within MAP so now we're at the -8 required for Twin Flurry.
Action 2, Twin Flurry. Attack once each with both weapons.
Action 3, same.
Action 4, single weapon Strike from Haste (actually the Haste Strike can go anywhere in the attack routine and it changes virtually nothing, I just stuck it here because.)
And that's our routine of a ridiculous 7 atta-ph wait! We have desperate finisher! This feat procs at the end of your turn where if you haven't used any reactions this turn you can give up your ability to use reactions for the round to use one action with the Press trait. Twin Flurry again!

And there we have 9 freaking attacks in one round. 7 of which are at -8 to-hit. PLEASE don't ever do this in an actual game. XD

A couple notes:
Twin Takedown is important because it's the only way besides Twin Flurry to get two attacks with one action (well that and hunted shot but this build required dual wield. Oh and also Flurry of blows). This also serves the purpose of immediately getting MAP to -8 so the remaining actions can go straight to Twin Flurry. Granted you could do that by utilizing the Haste Strike early in the round but this still gets us an extra swing in.

This entire combo I believe would be impossible if it weren't for the fact that Multiclass Hunt Target doesn't reduce MAP. Because I'm pretty sure at least one of these feats requires an agile weapon in the off hand but Twin Flurry requires both weapons be at MAP -8 or worse. I could be wrong here though, the feats may just apply a penalty if not agile.

As mentioned Agile Grace is no good because your MAP maxes at -6 with it. No Twin Flurry.

And that's that! The ridiculously long attack sequence that probably actually sucks because over 75% of the attacks have a stupidly large penalty. XD

So Certain Strike is a feat that I love in concept, I place great value in a move that makes almost certain your foe takes at least some damage, great for downing a near-dead foe who's got like single digit HP or even just for getting the most out of those lower-accuracy 2nd and beyond attacks, (I havent played a character with it yet though I will tomorrow so IDK how fun it is in practice) but in thinking about it a lot I realized some weapons are -much- stronger with it.

For reference for anyone unfamiliar with it, Certain Strike is a level 10 Fighter feat, it takes 1 action to use and has the Press trait (means it can only be used if you're currently taking Multiple Attack Penalty, and most of them have effects that only work if your MAP is -4 or more). You make a Strike and if it hits it works as normal but if it's a failure (but not a crit fail) you still deal minimum damage (Act as if you rolled a 1 on every damage die).

This came about when I was thinking about how it's interesting that a Fighter with this feat does the same damage regardless of the type of weapon you use (As long as they have the same level of Potency), because it's all determined by the number of dice and your static bonuses, not what type of dice the weapon rolls.

But then I realized that's not entirely true.

Weapons with the Forceful trait do an extra point of damage per die on your second attack in a round, 2 per die on the third and beyond.

Twin trait deals 1 extra damage per die if you've attacked with the Twin weapon in your other hand at least once that turn.

Charge trait is 1 damage per die if you moved at least 10 feet before the attack.

Backstab does 1, 2, or 3 damage (not per die) depending on weapon quality if you hit a flat-footed foe.

All of these damage boosts apply to a failed attack with Certain Strike, making them all more effective with it than weapons that lack these traits.

To illustrate the point I'll use a 12th level Fighter with 20 STR, comparing his normal attack damage and certain strike damage with a +3 Greatsword (none of the above traits) and a +3 Falchion (Forceful trait). And for in case it matters I'm going to arbitrarily assume a 65% accuracy for 1st attack each round.

Normal attack with Greatsword, 4d12+5, average 31.

Falchion (1st attack), 4d10+5, average 27.

Falchion (2nd), 4d10+9, average 31.

Falchion (3rd), 4d10+13, Average 35.

Now for Certain Strike. Given the 65% chance on the first attack, we have a 40% chance to hit with the second attack and a 25% chance with the third or more, and as mentioned it can only be used on 2nd or later attacks. In both cases we have a 50% chance of a normal (not critical) failure, which is when the special effect of dealing minimum damage procs.

Greatsword (2nd, 3rd, or later), 9 damage (1 per die+5 for STR)
Falchion (2nd), 13 damage (1 per die, 5 STR, 1 more per die for Forceful)
Falchion (3rd+), 17 damage (1 per die, 5 STR, 2 more per die for Forceful)

The Falchion in this example deals a time and a half as much on the second attack, twice on the third or later when the effect procs (Which is half of the time Certain Strike is used).

Admittedly this is a bit of a niche thing and only applies to one class (unless someone gives up their 20th level feat to get this with Advanced Maneuver) but I thought it was interesting how some weapons could be a time and a half as effective or more with this make-sure-the-punk-takes-at-least-some-damage technique.

As the title. I was glancing at weapons and it kept bugging me that the ECB was 2 Bulk. It just feels like it should be 1 since it's a finesse and Elf-y weapon, despite being 2-handed. But I thought maybe all 2-handed weapons were 2 Bulk for reasons so I looked over the others. There were a couple discrepancies (spiked Chain is 1 Bulk despite being 2-hand and a couple 1 handed weapons are 2 Bulk, namely an axe that can be wielded two handed an a 1-H reach weapon) but then I saw that the Falchion is 1 Bulk! That discrepancy doesn't seem quite right. They're somewhat similar weapons (both forceful and two handed, one is finesse and d8 and the other is sweep and d10, and this is irrelevant but in PF1 they were almost identical) but it really seems like the lower damage finesse weapon would be the lighter of the two, yeah?

As the title. Not sure how often it'd be used but I'd love if these two classes had this option. Currently Con is the only score no one can get as a key ability, and Barbarian is the classic HP Tank while Paladin is being tuned as more of a Defender-type class so they both make sense as options to have this. Again, I've yet to see a case where someone would choose that over more Str for either of these classes but it'd be cool to have the option.

So the party I run for had gotten to the point where they found the Gnoll Camp across a river. Our Bard (or maybe it was the Ranger, I don't recall) and Druid asked to roll for knowledge on them. I asked for their Society modifiers and made the d20 rolls where they couldn't see. One player made the D.C. to know they were from the Al'Choraviik Tribe, same tribe as the hyenas from before belonged to. Druid got a Nat 1. So I told her she had heard that this tribe of Gnolls was one of the only groups of Gnolls that were said to be relatively civilized and friendly, or at least non-hostile. As a result the party ended up approaching the river bank and hailing the camp instead of trying to get around into an advantageous position or sneak by or something (except for one party member who was distrustful in-character despite the Druid's claims, he hid in some bushes with his bow as a precaution).

A couple of arrows later the party was attempting to cross the river or back off to a safer range (this resulted in a hilarious scene due to the Barbarian having Raging Athlete and Sudden Charge, he basically ran across the river and slammed one of the Gnolls with a crit). In addition the Barbarian was fighting nonlethally at first due to still thinking there was a misunderstanding (no one spoke Gnoll so we didn't know they were calling us fresh meat). Then partway through something happened that prompted me to give the Druid a reroll on her check and I informed her after the successful roll that the rumor she heard from that one drink guy may not have been reputable. The battle proceeded from there, not op many troubles aside from the Bard losing half her HP on an early crit, and it was the end of the day after that fight anyway so we were good.

In the end that bit of faulty knowledge made the encounter MUCH more enjoyable and unique than it would have been normally, the players loved it. And the secret aspect of the knowledge Roll made the experience. No one knew the info was wrong, so there was no going into the situation with irritation knowing that the info was going to cause trouble and they couldn't do anything about it (and conversely there was also no attempts to rationalize or find ways to ignore the bad intel), instead everything flowed naturally in and out of character and while it made the fight a little harder everyone liked the experience.

(I know that in a more severe situation bad intel could have worse results but that's true whether you know out of character or not. And it's no different than any other catastrophe caused by a bad roll, either the party suffers the consequences or the GM pulls a punch to avert a bad situation if no one would be happy with it.)

Do all unarmed strikes count as fists for the purpose of the Cleric/Paladin abilities that allow you to increase the damage die of a deity's simple favored weapon by 1 step? I'm specifically asking for the purpose of a Goblin Paladin of Irori with the Razor Teeth ancestry feat. A 1d8 weapon with no traits doesn't seem like too much compared to a 1d6 with agile, finesse, and nonlethal (which is what a fist on an Irori Paladin would be), but maybe the lack of needing a hand to use the teeth counts for more than I think. Though the book seems to indicate that you don't have to use your hands to attack with a "fist" so they've both got that perk.

I ask this for the aforementioned teeth which seems like a reasonable thing after being boosted though I do wonder if having unarmed strikes count for this boost would cause a problem with some of the Monk unarmed attacks (either by a Monk using Cleric multiclass or a Cleric doing the inverse if we get Monk multiclass at some point. Though again, I'm not sure if that would even be a problem. From what I remember of the Monk attacks none of them would break two handed martial weapon tier with a dice Increase, and while they have that hands-free advantage you're also paying in feats to get them.

Idk, the balance of it is debatable but I am curious if all unarmed attacks are supposed to qualify as a favored weapon for Irori, as well as whether or not they should.