Gortle's page

Well I'm just glad we finally have a ruling on instance of damage. Not a clean definition but a probably good enough example.

Gortle wrote:

... Unfortunately that list includes Activate an Item. ...

I think I'd say the companion items rule for "... can never Activate an Item ..." would still be specific enough to trump this spells effect, granting all minus Activate, imo.

Probably. It is just that I have seen specific versus general interpreted many different ways.

Note that I have used two different uses of specific and general in the same sentence to identify the conflict. The actually rules on Specific Overrides General is unclear leaving it to the GM to decide.

Xenocrat wrote:

It is limited to "basic actions," which are a defined group in Player Core (e.g. stride, seek, strike[but not for you!], etc.), and not any familiar ability actions.

"...any basic action it knows." is future-proofed wording.

If you give the familiar Manual Dex, that adds in Interact for Draw, Swap, "Ranged Pass," etc.

Take Cover is another "basic action"

It specifically adds ALL basic actions.

Sounds like the sort of thing some GMs are going to house rule.

Another balance issue here is that casters really like their high rank spell slots, so most people won't want to use this spell until higher levels. So this is very strong from around level 9.

I never subscribed to the notion that first edition PF was broken, rather that the average player doesn't respect the tactical wargaming roots of D&D. This mentality has lead to the average 5e player thinking every PC build should be able to walk into the midst of enemy forces in combat regardless of their build.

The problem is that some people worked the PF1 build system in multiple different ways. So PCs had wildy different damage ouputs and defenses. It became difficult to challenge as a GM without arbitrarily limiting the combos your particular group liked. Especially if you have groups with a few casual players. If your group has come to a satisfactory position then please enjoy PF1.

Making Off Guard have a penalty to reflex saves and otherwise making small changes to the flanking rules to help ranged players might be a part of the solution. Encouraging team work....

I think Paizo intentionally creates some minor imbalance to make things more interesting.

They sure do go out of their way to create different wordings on similar powers. There are a lot of very specific differences which overly complicate the game. It seems to be a design decision.

I don't actually think you can remove attributes because D&D players care a lot about legacy, but it's pretty clearly a feature that doesn't do much except provide ways to make your character worse.

Legacy is important. I for one liked the traditional 3d6 normal distribution of stats because it said something about normal people in your game world. But people have walked away from that.

Quote:

From a characterisation and roleplaying point of view, stats are part of the description of your character

To be honest, I think sometimes this can be detrimental too, because having that stat written down kind of... locks you into a certain reality.

But in many ways stats are reality. I'm a physically imposing person. I can't really do anything much about it, it just is. I don't have to lean into that. I can go a different direction in my life but short of magic I can't really do much about it. Now you don't have to include this level of reality in a game, but it is important to many people.

Anyhow I think I'll have a discussion with my gaming group next week on it and see if they want to try attributeless. I'm playing a game with a lot of radical homebrew at the moment.

... Huh? Rolling closer to 11 every time makes every +1 matter more (for failure vs. success), not less.

It is a big part of the reason I gave up on Gurps the tight 3d6 distribution means that the numbers are very important, but once you get your skill to 14+ the numbers become irrelevant. This combined badly with the huge numbers of skills. So the game became all about whether or not the skill you had invested in was relevant or not - and hence was very much GM arbitrary.

Get rid of stats.

Ok your points are fair and reasonate with some other people as well in this list. There are a few who are saying you can get away with a +3 main stat but I can tell you that most (not all) of the players in my local groups wouldn't be prepared to do that. RPGs are about roleplaying fun and competitive dice fun.

Every fighter being just as strong as the next fighter is clearly unrealistic, but every fighter being near enough equally as effective as the next fighter is desirable from a balance point of view.

But what do stats actually do for the game and what could you replace them with? No one really seems to be getting at that.

From a characterisation and roleplaying point of view, stats are part of the description of your character. Or at least they can be. So if you want to get rid of stats you should replace them with a selection of descriptive feats which have minor secondary benefits. Things like you are bursting with youthful energy and exhurburance, or you are a highly disciplined at your training, or you concentrate really well and study the movements of your opponent, or you are just a physically large specimen.

Get rid of any options that feel meaningless

Meaningless from a power sense or a roleplay sense? It is hard to cover both of these, but I do want game designers to do both.

Each class should also fill a niche and each player should be able to accomplish that niche while playing in the session. Not just once in a blue moon, but constantly.

Maybe. I certainly find it very annoying when some classes like inventors have failure chances on their main power and others don't. Do you really want everything to be like the new swashbuckler when you gain panache even when you fail?

Instead of creating new classes all the time, offer meaningful support and new options or variations for whats already been released.

Yes more breadth would be great. There is a lot which needs to be rounded off and cleaned up and Paizo never seem to get to it. So it falls onto the players and GMs to patch the game.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

You don't need RK for optimal group play. For some reason some folks are holding onto this idea of the wizard making some RK check to figure out some secret that makes winning easy. It doesn't work like that anymore.

I think it's because it's something people want from the game. Not because the game necessarily delivers on that, but it's something people want.

It is something they should fix.

The problem is the name Recall Knowledge. They should introduce an similiar skill action to discover or investigate to be able to uncover tactics or weakness in combat.

There is perhaps some overlap with Perception. Thematically it can justify gaining useful information. In a way that Recall Knowledge can't because you are constantly running into rare and unique monsters.

Any chance of the SF2E spells being added to the list?

Not really on my radar. I just haven't looked at SF2.

The Astral Rune is almost essential on weapons.

NielsenE wrote:

Has Paizo tried a Precision Resistance to have a lesser form to use when it feels thematic, without completely turning off a precision class's core feature?

It probably needs some tweaking, since I think the level appropriate minimum resistance would still be close to effectively immune. So it might feel as bad.

Proteans have precision resistance.

Which just makes it even more important that they clean up their resistance / damage rules.

I'd issue a proper errata for the damage issues they continue to avoid. Then I'd go back and balance up a few more of the existing classes and subclasses that don't get played much.

Immunity to each specific damage type should exist. Because everyone should have to deal with it now and then.

However precision immunity shows up in oozes, ghosts, spirits, swarms, other incorporeal creatures and a moderate number of special "puzzle" type monsters.

A GM just needs to bear in mind that running an adventure where a character's main shtick is useless a large portion of the time is not fun. Anything more than say 20% is probably too much. Looking specifically at the early levels of Abomination Vaults.

Personally I'd choose a different monster to challenge the party with or just remove from it incorporeal creatures as they tend to have a physical resistance anyway.

The other immunity that is over done is poison immunity. More classes should get access to the Toxicologist benefit of swapping aicd for poison.

Probably time to create new threads for these subjects. The ruling is clear we can discuss it elsewhere.

Maya Coleman wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Maya Coleman wrote:

Hey all! Guides are great, but please don't include generative AI images in them! It puts them in a kind of weird grey area where it's not us using the AI, which is something we don't do, but having AI associated with our content and on our forums puts us in a tricky position. The things on our forums are things we promote and support, and we do not promote or support the use of generative AI in our products or products associated with them. Please continue to make the guides, but just make sure the art you're using is from an artist!

We'll just go back to stealing original artwork directly from the artists then. *shrugs in jest*

Any of the art used on our blogs is free for you to use with proper credit and association (abiding by our Community Use Policy), and we're currently working on compiling it all (the art files) in one place for easy access and use.

I know other companies also do this and it's genuinely for the best health of the community in my experience, so thank you to Paizo for looking for a solution that benefits creators.

Generative AI genuinely has no place in creative content. Call me old fashioned, but I'd prefer to have no images in a guide to images from generative AI. It would make me question the integrity and passion behind the guide as a whole.

I'm sure the guides have passion and integrity behind them, but the use of AI at all makes me hesitant to share with my players as if you used AI for one piece of the content, there's no reason to assume you didn't elsewhere.

My guides are for my own reference and are useful to the community. They are in no way commercial or for profit.

My guides had no images in them and I often got badgered to dress them up with art. I carefully respected copyright so I didn't steal images - which seems to be the traditional practice. I'm not aware of much in the way of protests about actual copyright violations on the forums but I assume there must have been some. It is funny what people choose to be sensitive about.

I eventually added a few simple AI images last year - because it is legal and easy.

The guides listed here almost all predate ChatGPT anyway so even if the irregular spelling and formatting mistakes don't convince you, you can still be reasonable confident there is little AI content.

This moralising crusade to exclude AI content is not supported by the vast majority of consumers. In the long run cheap and convenient is going to win out.

As far as preventing harm to content creators and artists. Change is inevitable, most of us have been through lots already and we adjusted fine. Progress always has a downside but it is always more of an oppourtunity than a curse. There is a lot to be said about the simple virtue of the Amish lifestyle, but it is never going to be for me.

All you are doing with a boycott is forcing people to leave and making change faster.

Hey all! Guides are great, but please don't include generative AI images in them! It puts them in a kind of weird grey area where it's not us using the AI, which is something we don't do, but having AI associated with our content and on our forums puts us in a tricky position. The things on our forums are things we promote and support, and we do not promote or support the use of generative AI in our products or products associated with them. Please continue to make the guides, but just make sure the art you're using is from an artist!

No it doesn't put you in that position. You don't own our content, or our commentary on your content. You never have.

Don't try to enforce a principle that you endorse on others. We don't all agree. Let us make our own decisions. You can try to persuade us. But AI is the future not just for artists, but for hobbists, GMs, writers and guide writers.

Well level 14 for Mysterious Repertoire instead of level 8 for the old sorcerer. It is befinitely a good point. You have always been more keen on higher level play. But I think you'd be more upset about missing Effortless Concentration.
Sorcerer get divine access as a level 1 feat - Blessed Blood, which is arguably better than a free class ability at level 11.

It is just that the best Oracle abilities are there level 1 cursebound feats. Which anyone can get via a couple of archetype feats.

Agreed that is the biggest problem. The new Oracle suffers from the same problem as the Pyschic - you can poach the best part. I for one prefer a sorcerer - oracle over a straight oracle.

Why would you stop people expressing themselves?

Why don't you have Stunning Blows? It may not be the best DC but it is basically a free rider on your flurry of blows even with the bow.

I'm not seeing much in the way of damage adds. So things like Unfailing Bow, Heaven's Thunder, Enchanting Shot , Eldritch Shot

Return Fire is broken if you have a ally feed you a ranged attack at -10, but otherwise it is meh.

Reasons.

It is a difference and a complication the game could do without.

It is extremely easy for there to be a drought, and outbreak of fungus, or a plague of insects if it becomes a real problem for the GM. I always prefer to accommodate weird player plans and adapt as a GM. It's much more fun when the game is cooperative and the players engaged in the world building.

So, we have 3 mutually exclusive categories for attacks with attack rolls:

1) Melee attack

Which has 2 mutually exclusive subcategories:

1.a) Melee weapon attack
1.b) Melee unarmed attack

2) Ranged attack

Which has 2 mutually exclusive subcategories:

2.a) Ranged weapon attack
2.b) Ranged unarmed attack

3) Spell attack

Which has 2 mutually exclusive subcategories:

3.a) Ranged spell attack
3.b) Melee spell attack

Nope.

No where does it say mutually exclusive.
The rules never say distinct and separate.
The various subcategories can co exist and overlap - because the rules text uses it sometimes, eg Ignition cantrip. But what a melee spell attack is is not defined, we are left to guess.

The rules are in natural language.

For... reasons, I'm building a party of characters, and I'm trying to figure out if they are balanced.

So I have a cleric, a Druid, a Monk, a Swashbuckler, and a Thaumaturge (if I can figure out a way to make them "showy").

is this a fairly balanced party?

Yes it can be.

You have a few melee specialists, access to multiple spell lists, ranged attacks, access to most skills including recall knowledge, heaps of healing. Presumably the monk will have a high strength to cover athletics.

It is probably not offensive enough and a bit generalist for some tastes but it will work fine.

Bust-R-Up wrote:

Ajaxius wrote:

[W]eapons are pretty broadly effective based on design, force, and technique. Realism generally sides with, "size doesn't matter."

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

Yeah. That's reality. Another reason to avoid putting it in a fantasy game.

... Realism or believability doesn't have to be that tight.

True but it would be nice if it mattered somewhat. Just a little something to add flavour.

I'm not really interested in weapon size. Leverage ie weapon + arm length does mean that a smaller person can hurt the larger.

I would just like there to be something relevant about creature size especially around athletics - and there is basically nothing. Yes it is just a design decision Paizo made to keep the game simple and fanastic, but it is one I would not make.

Ajaxius wrote:

Claxon wrote:

but all you've done is add a weapon to the game that 99% of characters wont use.

Ah, yes, the thing that already happens every time a new book comes out with 10 more weapon options ;)

I'm curious about Paizo's rationale behind this. I don't think a lot of people care about new weapons because, if we are honest here, most people use the common fantasy staples like longswords, daggers, greataxes, and the like. When, for example, a weapon like the boaring pike releases nobody cares about it unless its better than similarly flavored weapons since most people don't even know the difference between that or a regular longspear.

I personally wouldn't mind if most weapons were coupled together and we kept the weapons that feel distinct in mechanics or flavor like chain swords, sais, etc.

20-50 weapons is all we need but we have 323+ and growing.

There is new content and there is new content.

I just don't see the point for why someone would want a system to be designed around realism.

Yes some people do want more realism. I do get that people have different tastes. Don't assume everyone agrees with yours, or worse that just because you have a more popular opinion that there aren't large groups of people who want to do it their way. PF2 is not PBTA or FATE - it is clearly a crunchier system for people who like that. Also within PF2 there are huge play and stylistic differences.

It is always going to be a question of how much realism.

Yes people have different comprehension about what is real, and we have fantasy elements to the game. But we do have a shared real world that we all interact with as a basis of understanding.

Because many people like to build off that understanding and explore the logical consequences from there.

Deus ex Machina is not something most people like.

I agreee, size does matter. It is silly that it really doesn't in PF2. In fact things like this are my personal biggest problem with PF2. Too many powers have a cute concept and name but don't actually provide any mechanical support for that flavour.

Yes PF1 was ridiculously over powered in it's size change modifiers - things like +8 strength differences. We shouldn't go back there.

I don't want to see halfling melee fighters being made obsolete.

However size should have an effect. Some differences would be nice. Pluses and minuses. It should have a play effect when you are taking on a monster a couple of size categories larger than yourself.

Things like The Titan Wrestler feat that allows halflings to grapple Ogres with no penalites are just a bad idea. Why can we have some special rules to give that situation some character? Maybe the effect of grapple is a bit different, but tripping stills works??!?

Yes I am an engineer.

I don't think there is a major problem with the arcane list.

To me the Wizard lacks flavour as it is currently implemented. It doesn't really stand out from other casters.

I dislike that meta magic is rarely used. I dislike that recall knowledge (which is a good concept) doen't really work well for a wizard - at least compared to other classes which have it handed to them on a plate.

I don't see that it is going to change in this edition.

That was quite an old change. The old information was still on one of the builds. Thanks.

Not really sure what you are getting at. To me the problems is all the archetype options I haven't considered. None of my guides really look at Animist, Exemplar, Guardian, Commander yet.

and there are similar numbers for spells and all types of feats.

I do agree that the increase in complexity as the character level goes up is a problem. The shear amount of tracking for Vancian casting, the number of items, longer turns because of increased action efficiency and number of options.

Gortle wrote:

Agreed. It is part of what crossblooded means. I'd enable it as a GM if asked.

I need you as my GM. Do you run any games over Foundry?

I used to but I'm madly home brewing a the moment and I'm in Oz.

Agreed. It is part of what crossblooded means. I'd enable it as a GM if asked.

No. A character multiclassed can get one via Basic Bloodline Spell and the later ones via taking feats. But a Sorcerer can't multiclass into a Sorcerer.
Crossblooded Evolution doesn't actually give you the focus spell.

I still remember we hit level 12 and our wizard summoned a dragon to fight a dragon to keep up with its movement. Got wrecked by its fear aura, then couldn't land a hit flying and attacking once. Just a total waste of a spell slot. That wizard never used that spell again in any campaign on any caster character.

This is a matter of expectations. A spell should be just part of the solution versus a boss monster. If a summoned dragon was a match for an on level dragon then the game would be broken like every previous edition.

Of course it doesn't help that spells like Synesthesia and Wall of Stone exist. Which do have the power to swing an encounter all by themselves.

less useful because of the static DC

Spellhearts have special rules and may use your Spell DC. Depending on your build of course, the item DC is often irrelevant.

Tridus wrote:

I'm pretty sure that's why Disarm was nerfed so hard in PF2: Everyone hated it when it happened to them in PF1. It was a classic "players like to do this but really hate it in response" situation. Which tends to not be very fun as a GM, but it's not fun for a player who is based around using weapons when your weapon keeps getting removed and you're crippled.

Course, in premaster PF2 it was awful because it was over-nerfed. The penalty lasting until its removed with an action made it a lot better. You still won't actually "disarm" very often (something which trips newbies up) but the success outcome is solid.

To get Disarm to be a reasonable tactic you would probably need to aloow players to be effective without their magic weapon with all the right runes. But players like their special weapons...

Similar reason why grapple also got nerfed. A character built for grappling could pretty much shutdown a large number of enemies with basically no recourse for that enemy. In single boss fights it was a huge problem. Now, a successful grapple only grabs them, and you need a crit success to get restrained.

Grapple was just broken and too complex.

Agreed it would rune into problems because there would be no line of effect once swallowed.

The problem is that every interpretation have its own problem or something that someone will dislike.

True. They should have been explicit.

The way I play it is a deduction from the rules. For the conditions which have their own ending rules like frightened or sickened then I use what is stated in the condition - so you can end up with a condition even after moving out of an area or after the spell that generated that condition expires. Other conditions that have no duration or reasonable ending condition so I use the duration of the effect - because these conditions don't make any sense without it.

For me it is a question of identifying the specific and general rules. I take notice of what is in the condition itself unless it is otherwise overidden.

It has a 1 round duration (so yes this means that the frightened ends in the beginning of the caster turn, not matter how much it's its value).

I disagree with this interpretation.

Super minor correction: Private Sanctum's entry currently lists that it's "Replaced by Private Sanctum" in remaster, rather than correctly listing the new name (Peaceful Bubble). Thanks for the guide!

Thanks fixed.

The scaling problem with assurance is that it doesn't include ability score bonus and item bonus. Ability score can get as high as +7 , status bonus of +3 and item +3 before doing anything extreme. Which means taking a 10 to ignore those modifiers is eventually like choosing to roll a zero.

One of the fundamental PF2 design principles (and biggest stumbling blocks for people from other systems) is that if something is supposed to be meaningful challenge (as defined by the DC by level chart) you can't optimize yourself out of rolling for it.

Well Paizo have failed more than a few times then. Example the Subtle trait just works. There is no roll. Prior to this trait it always failed though the GM might allow you to improvise a roll at some sort of DC.

Dubious Knowledge is pretty reliable.

For something like the Inventor's Overdrive

That is a poor example. Other classes don't have a fail chance at all for getting off their focus powers. Why is the Inventor being penalised? It is not as if its a non core feature, nor is it especially powerful. In fact it falls below some other classes.

Some of Paizo's decisions are quite arbitrary.

Assurance has some value with Medicine, and some with Athletics. But in general it is a very marginal feat and from level 10 very little value at all.

That is the real problem. Assurance is somewhat useful early on, it become useless. It needs to scale better.

That is true, the divine list’s best action denial is calm, but that isn’t as effective on a save as slow, so the divine caster is not as good at action denial as other casters but that is also outside the scope of blasting, but it’s a tangent I went on too.

Calm is about being an area of effect save or suck at rank 2. Yes it has got limitations but it is total action denial. It is a different beast to Slow.

Divine has both Infectious Ennui, Roaring Applause at rank 3 which in some ways are both better than Slow, being will save instead of fortitude and the downside is perhaps being mental. Versus a caster they also now have Manifestation Of Spirits at rank 2.

So calling out the divine list for not having Slow just isn't that same that it was back in 2000.

Gortle wrote:

Lots of Incarnate spells. But mostly they do the damage I'd expect in one round from a spell, and just do it in two rounds. Perhaps Conquering Soldiers, Jassim's Allegiance and Pest Swarm are OK.

The depart effect of Conquering Soldiers is not only condition removal and Heroism 6th rank on you+allies within 100', it also increases DCs for 3 rounds. That includes spell DCs, so your casters on rounds 3-5 have effective Mythic proficency on their save spells.

Yep so I do rate this spell highly.

At lower levels many combats are only 3 rounds long, which is a problem for an effect that takes 2 rounds to come on line. The effect obviously needs to be stronger than what you would expect from an immediate one round spell.

In this case for a rank 10 spell we are talking about high level play so the combat is longer to get the better value out of the slower spell.