Guntermench's page

Those you only get once

Obviously.

That's not what I meant.

I meant that you get a lot from dual class even without the one attribute boost.

Like better proficiencies, better HP, etc.

Unless you specifically avoid them anyway.

Guntermench wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I give both. Why play dual class if you can't max out both key stats.

Because it still gives you a s*!&load of stuff.

The stuff only matters if it is effective which is driven by stats. So an unequal stat would push you towards the stuff using the higher stat.

I have played quite a few dual class games. Often all that stuff doesn't get used because action limitations always limit stuff.

A lot of it is excessive and sits there on the character looking like an option you never use.

What I like it for is when players don't want to play the healer or the support casters to give the players who don't like these roles the option to play these roles without having to give up playing a martial role they have more fun playing.

The biggest problem is with mixing martials that create stacking enhanced damage. Then you have monster classes that do this narrow thing too well. So I tend to use dual class to ensure caster-martial balance in a group not allowing martial dual classes.

Dual class casters have a natural bottleneck on power because action limitations limit spell use and caster abilities are set up very well not to stack.

Martial dual classes are the bigger danger when it comes to overpowered combinations. They often use the same stat anyway.

So giving both a key stat in a martial stat and a caster stat, which is how I usually structure dual class games makes the caster abilities and martial abilities equally attractive to use at least causing the player to choose between too equally viable options to use in a given round where as if I just give them the martial stat or caster stat they will almost always pick the martial stat and lean in that direction as it improves an unlimited resource they can enhance with weaker casting.

So I give both so the options are equally viable so when they pick from that "S-load of stuff" they don't feel one is clearly better than the other.

I was referring more to things like more skill increases and/or just better proficiencies.

I give both. Why play dual class if you can't max out both key stats.

Because it still gives you a s%#%load of stuff.

Guntermench wrote:

It's functionally identical to Keen Recollection, do you ban that too?

I treat it the same way, so it applies to the core skills, not "I'm going to use a hyper specific lore for the creature that just appeared in front of me" on literally everything that they're not a Master in the appropriate skill for.

The purpose is literally that they're good at things that aren't their specialty:

You can recall pertinent facts on topics that aren’t your specialty.

You're even more punitive than I am.

Luke Styer wrote:

Because Bob wanted to be good at identifying creatures, Bob selected Untrained Improvisation.

Except this makes no real sense in a game where options like Loremaster and Bardic Lore exist, both of which require more investment to do this specific thing and yet are strictly worse than Untrained Improvisation if you allow it for every Lore in the game.

There's no reason for either of those options to even exist if the actual design intent is "take Untrained Improvisation and just pretend like you have a lore skill for literally everything in existence." Especially when both of those are strictly limited to Recall Knowledge and Lore skills aren't when a relevant situation pops up.

Quote:

That’s my point. At level 1, Rules As Written, an untrained [Specific Lore] check to Recall Knowledge to identify a creature is better than a trained Occultism check to Recall Knowledge to identify a creature. That has nothing to do with Untrained Improvisation, which is a level 3 feat. The “problem” exists completely independently of Untrained Improvisation.

The part that makes Untrained Improvisation relevant to that discussion is that the feat makes the problem still exist at level 5 when it otherwise wouldn't. With the feat, using "super specific lore for this singular named creature that I never mentioned knowing about until right now" is better than someone who is an Expert in the relevant skill, and also better than someone with Bardic Lore/Loremaster Lore, both of which are supposed to be for this exact purpose (since those are only trained at this level).

But yes, it is also a problem at level 1 even without it the feat if its allowed. That just normally ceases to be a problem so quickly that it rarely comes up in practice.

I just don't allow it at all for consistency.

It's functionally identical to Keen Recollection, do you ban that too?

Guntermench wrote:

I think they mean you can improvise Golem Lore and be better than someone that's Expert in Arcana or Crafting.

However this is largely solvable by just making people guess what to use instead of just assuming they use the most appropriate thing.

Also Investigators get this for free on Recall Knowledge.

Eh, I really don't think the guessing game is a good general solution. It goes in really hard on "What is and isn't a lore" to resolve mechanical issues. "Monsters of the Absalom Sewers Lore" is certainly something I'd let a player take, but now there's no guessing for a dungeon and improvisation is the better choice. Or you don't allow something like that, and now it's a question of how good the player is at guessing the sort of creature it is, which is a fairly metagame-y thing. (It might be fun for particular groups, of course, with it actually being an intentionally meta game of "how specific do you want to risk the lore you choose to be, weighing a better reduction vs. missing the mark and getting very little".)

But yeah, that's definitely what I mean, and thank you for the good example.

They could definitely guess something more general, then narrow it down if they're correct for the future more difficult attempts. This is perfectly reasonable.

I mean more if they're untrained in everything and they're literally just guessing (in character anyway) that giving them the best case option is kind of silly.

Guntermench wrote:

However this is largely solvable by just making people guess what to use instead of just assuming they use the most appropriate thing.

Outside of weird corner cases like “Is this Osyluth an undead or a fiend, that seems SUPER antagonistic GM behavior to me, and I say that as a GM.

I honestly don’t understand the why so many GMs seem to want to make Recall Knowledge checks harder or less efficacious. I love when my players make Recall Knowledge checks, so I like almost any option that encourages it.

In this particular case it's because they're literally taking a shot in the dark. They are less recalling knowledge and more b@&&@@!*ting and hoping they're correct.

That’s my point. At level 1, Rules As Written, an untrained [Specific Lore] check to Recall Knowledge to identify a creature is better than a trained Occultism check to Recall Knowledge to identify a creature. That has nothing to do with Untrained Improvisation, which is a level 3 feat. The “problem” exists completely independently of Untrained Improvisation.

Only if they get to be correctly super specific, which seems overly generous on a first attempt.

QuidEst wrote:

I'd generally chuck this under the "does this interpretation sound too good to be true?" rule of thumb. If one general feat allowed you to apply a -5 to the DC of recall knowledge checks, then it would be better than Expert in the relevant skill.

Putting aside the fact that Untrained Improvisation doesn’t allow “you to apply a -5 to the DC of recall knowledge checks,” but rather allows you to make a check you were already able to make with a proficiency bonus greater than 0, how is that better than “Expert in the relevant skill”? Expert in the relevant skill provides a proficiency bonus of Level + 4, which is always higher than Untrained Improvisation ever goes, and you also get enjoy whatever reduction to DC applies when you use the skill to Recall Knowledge.

Quote:

It would also mean that at level 1, you should never roll Arcana, Occultism, Society, or Crafting to recall knowledge on any character, because the +3 from a trained skill will always be worse than the -5 to DC from an untrained specific lore.

If a specific Lore skill exists, sure, though that’s an entirely separate “problem” from using Untrained Improvisation to Recall Knowledge with Lore skills.

I think they mean you can improvise Golem Lore and be better than someone that's Expert in Arcana or Crafting.

However this is largely solvable by just making people guess what to use instead of just assuming they use the most appropriate thing.

Also Investigators get this for free on Recall Knowledge.

I imagine "You can do it!" in a Rob Schneider voice.

Pretty much.

And because it's both so effective and free it's used constantly.

It's so f%+*ing obnoxious.

F++! One For All.

I hate that g$$ d*!n feat.

Character ends up going "you can di it!" for every g~# d~*n thing the entire party does. No one can just do their thing without another player chiming in with "I rolled over a 25, you get a +2/3/4!".

Since it costs nothing it's every. Single. F$%@ing. Roll. No one gets a solo moment to shine because someone decided having a cheerleader feat was a good idea. Except the cheerleader of course, because they can't Aid themselves.

Holy hell I wish that feat had never been printed.

Even without my personal vehement hatred of the RP aspect it also makes it too consistent easily getting a huge bonus.

Guntermench wrote:

By RAW you don't roll some "Untrained Improvisation" check, you roll the check the same as anything else, so it would get the lore adjustment.

With that said, I probably wouldn't help them pick the most appropriate lore to use. If they get lucky they get lucky, or if someone has narrowed down the options go nuts. Otherwise you're improvising, it's a shot in the dark. It's really only problematic when you have someone that knows a s%!#load about the game and can metagame choose the best option every time.

All of that said, and even though it's generally not problematic, I do find this to be extremely stupid.

The problem here is in the phrase "the lore adjustment" suggesting that that's some fixed adjustment that exists. The only lore adjustments are ones the GM decides are appropriate to apply.

It's a convenient shorthand, I didn't mean there was some set in stone adjustment.

If they're improvising dragon lore against a dragon it's still appropriate, so typically that would result in a lower DC.

The adjustments themselves are outlined though. So you'll either get a -2, -5 or -10. Any of those help when you don't have any proficiency.

By RAW you don't roll some "Untrained Improvisation" check, you roll the check the same as anything else, so it would get the lore adjustment.

With that said, I probably wouldn't help them pick the most appropriate lore to use. If they get lucky they get lucky, or if someone has narrowed down the options go nuts. Otherwise you're improvising, it's a shot in the dark. It's really only problematic when you have someone that knows a s+%@load about the game and can metagame choose the best option every time.

All of that said, and even though it's generally not problematic, I do find this to be extremely stupid.

Literally only want Synthesist.

It specifies the skill to be rolled, not just the action.

I think people just need to stop with selective reading.

Allowing is allowing you to take them because the feat rules say you can only take feats with the general trait in skill feat slots.

If you put requiring you'd actually stop being able to take them at all.

RAW no, it doesn't work, and personally I wouldn't allow it to.

An errata to remove the reach portion would fix this for this situation, and thrown axes, but it wouldn't make a ton of sense for melee axe users.

I do kind of hate that though, because I liked the idea that you could lean into your archetypes schtick hard if you really wanted to (and if it had skill feats in it). Trading a class feat for a skill feat is usually going to be weaker choice.

I mean, you can. You just take the class feats from the archetype in your class or FA slots and the skill feats in you skill slots.

The only time this would be an issue is if there's no level 4 class feat option, which is rare.

Overall I think this is all moot since the Skill trait directly says when you can take feats with it:

A feat with this trait can be selected when a class grants a skill feat or general feat.

The archetype line is just stating that you can take them at all, since given they have this feat they can only be taken with skill or general feat slots and in another section it says you can only take feats with the general trait.

Clearly Paizo needs to cater to reading comprehension and add the word "only" though.

There's absolutely no reason to assume that they would work differently than baseline skill feats.

They are in two different places because you can take archetypes that give skill feats without using the Free Archetype variant rule.

Player Core states that archetype feats with the Skill trait are taken in place of skill feats or general feats. GM Core states that Free Archetype gives you class feats. Therefore you can't take archetype skill feats in your FA slots.

It is worded that way to allow you to take an archetype skill feat despite these general rules:

For most classes, you gain a general feat when you reach 3rd level and every 4 levels thereafter. Each time you gain a general feat, you can select any feat with the general trait whose prerequisites you satisfy.

General feats also include a subcategory of skill feats, which expand on what you can accomplish via skills. These feats also have the skill trait. Most characters gain skill feats at 2nd level and every 2 levels thereafter. When you gain a skill feat, you must select a general feat with the skill trait; you can't select a general feat that lacks the skill trait. The level of a skill feat is typically the minimum level at which a character could meet its proficiency prerequisite.

If you look at something like Steel Skin it has the Archetype and Skill traits, but is missing the General trait. This is unlike a normal skill feat like Acrobatic Performer that has the General and Skill traits. Without the wordi

It is not written to allow you to take a skill feat in place of a class feat.

I think this was only unclear because it doesn't look like you referred to the Feats rules themselves.

You're doing it right. RK says: "You attempt a skill check to try to remember a bit of knowledge regarding a topic related to that skill. Suggest which skill you'd like to use and ask the GM one question. The GM determines the DC. You might need to collaborate with the GM to narrow down the question or skills, and you can decide not to Recall Knowledge before committing to the action if you can't don't like your options."

So it's expected for the player to know what to roll before rolling it. You're a bit more upfront than the rules but overall the information you're giving is supposed to be given.

That reads as the player doesn't know what skill to use and just picks one that may or may not be relevant.

You should confirm if you're allowed to use either of those with your GM.

If you go Fighter you're going to find things too easy unless the GM bumps the average party level when making encounters. If you go Monk you'll be better than normal but if someone else goes Fighter then you're not going to feel that much stronger.

If you have to buy into atrocities that seems to really weight the scales towards evil.

I also think Kingmaker almost needs to be split into two entries next time: PF1 Kingmaker and PF2 Kingmaker. I don't know for sure, but my feeling from playing it and seeing other reactions to it is that these versions have not been received equally well. (I know anytime someone recommends Kingmaker and has actually run/played the PF2 one, its always caveated with "throw out or massively house rule the kingdom rules", and that's kind of a big problem.) Plus as you noted it's very polarizing in that people either love it or hate it. So there's some definite "know your group before starting this one" here, as some players just won't vibe with the open and largely freeform nature of this.

It's definitely love or hate. The rest of my group seems to love it, I rate it a 2/10 only because I enjoyed before we got our charter.

I actually like freeform stuff and hexcrawls, I just hate the kingdom rules, including the popular alternative ones, and having spent much more time thinking about what about it I don't like I've realized that I just find the premise absurd.

Should errata Know Thy Doom to be usable. It needs a specific statement saying you can use that reaction despite being unconscious or something.

Foil Senses breaks verisimilitude, and at a relatively low level, so it can be hard to accept the HUGE diversity of senses that it foils. But it does, whether or not one can rationalize it. How does one mask their "life" or "blood" in an offhand way they perform every day? Whether meditation/chakra/chi/zen practices or herbs/body modification/mundane balms and lotions, it can be whatever one wants. And it works.

(Funnily enough, I'm writing stories for a high-level Rogue in Golarion where I have to justify such things, mostly via lowering their "presence" via breathing and diet. But in the game itself, explanations can be handwaved away.)

Clearly you drain all of your blood and replace it with something else.

This feat has always been stupid. There's a number off special senses there's no reasonable way for you to prevent being seen by without dying.

My personal favourite was a Monk+Barbarian. Dragon Stance with Dragon Rage, every Leap feat either class has (this was better before the remaster). It was pretty fun, very maneuverable and hit like a truck.

In terms of optimization I've found Fighter or Gunslinger plus anything is almost always going to be best. This becomes more necessary the more other players do that. We were playing in a West Marches server and basically everyone had Fighter so it got a little hard to hit things for those of us that didn't.

I don't play most of what already exists and remove most of it when I GM, so none.

I'd just take Rogue for Perception for Initiative, Reflex saves, and a s$&!load of skills.

If I absolutely had to take two caster classes I'd go Wizard and Sorcerer to combine Sorcerous Potency with Spell Blending.

Channel smite has the same mechanism in that you get to hit and cast a spell in two actions and deal double damage on a crit, but:
- You don't need to recharge
- You don't provoke

It doesn't necessarily not provoke. Your still cast the spell, it just loses manipulate. If they can react on a spell cast or concentrate it still provokes.

It's also for a significant portion of the game at a lower to hit.

Forgot not everyone is trained yet.

But they do technically have one per the rules on class DC, it would just cap at 17. The rest about Arcane Fist is still relevant though.

If the Magus gets a remaster, it will have a Class DC.

It already does now, every class has a Class DC that it's Trained in.

Given Arcane Fists was errata'd to key off of Spell DC instead of Class DC for critical specialization I doubt they're going to add scaling to the Class DC of the Magus.

Generally "slowly" should cover it.

Lesser Death is brutal.

Yes. Yes they are. It's kind of hilarious.

Drawing a weapon while hidden in preparation for an ambush is a common enough trope that it at worst should require a Stealth check, not just make you revealed immediately.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

What's a high Reflex save? At different points, might be different but by high level you should have a 22 strength, Legendary Athletics, +2 or 3 item bonus, and with a +2 circumstance bonus while raging for combat maneuvers.

Let's say level 15 with a +2 weapon with trip or a +2 athletics item you're looking at a 15 +8 proficiency +5 str (21 str) +2 item +2 circumstance for rage (Brutal Bully or whatever it is called) for +32 with Titan Wrestler and reach. So a reflex save of +37 to need a 15 or better if the enemy isn't debuffed with some kind of clumsy or other negative condition modifier.

You usually have a better chance to trip than hit even against a high save creature as most creature's saves aren't that high given all you can stack. I'm not going to say a high reflex save creature who resists never happens and as a DM I do like to hand out Kip Up to certain enemies to counter it, but trip is pretty good almost all the time, especially go on a Giant Barbarian who doesn't necessarily need Titan Wrestler to deal with size.

Furious bully right, i forgot about that. that extra +2 makes a big difference.

Like a lesser death is level 16 has +33 reflex. So a level 15 barb with furious bully is doing great despite high reflex, triping on a 11. But if this was fought at level 13 as a +3 solo boss encounter for the party proficiency would be 2 less putting it at a 13 which is not as bad as a 15 without Furious Bully. Furious bully is really good.

Lesser Death probably not a great example since it would be done with Misfortune.

Also if you want to get hit to hit back you can already do that. It costs two feats, but has some added bonuses as well as triggering on being hit instead of crit.

It does increase your odds of being crit, but it also increases your odds of critting them in turn and if you ARE crit it's a free action.

If Fury had even mediocre unique feat options it would be an okay choice.

It really has no reason to do less damage than Dragon though, especially when Dragon gets good AoE too.

It isn't clear how the goblin ancestry feat "Kneecap" interacts with MAP. It lacks the Attack trait, but it calls for you to make a Strike as a part of the action. I think it needs to be mentioned in the next errata, to either add the missing Attack trait or to confirm whether or not it counts as an attack when increasing MAP or calculating it's accuracy.

Subordinate actions don't lose their own traits. This is in the Subordinate Actions rules, it doesn't need to be repeated for every instance.

Subordinate Actions

This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it’s modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on.

A Strike as a subordinate action remains an attack and affects and is affected by MAP as per usual.

I suppose I wasn't clear that I don't think Magus needs fixing, I offered Sentinel as an option for if you want to be tanky.

As a class Magus is fine. It's middle of the pack with huge high moments. That's a perfectly reasonable balance to have.

I think adding things to it is unnecessary.

I know I've played on several servers and therefore played with about 70 of them and other than like 3 min-maxers they'd take extra power because who wouldn't but they don't think it needs it.

A loud minority does not mean the class isn't working as intended.

And every class can have more than that, that's what skill feats and roleplay is for.

Guntermench wrote:

Sentinel, done.

At what, 8th level? "Just take an archetype" isn't a good excuse on a class infamous for being joined at the hip to a very specific archetype, and forgoing that archetype just for better defenses defeats one of the major points of picking Int on a Magus in the first place.

The archetypes are designed so that they don't have to bake this s+&+ I to every class but can give you the option for it without pulling it out of the power budget. That's why they exist. If this is a huge concern take it. If not, don't. What would you remove from Magus to free up power budget for heavy armour? Because you'd have to give up something.

Also yeah, you can grab it late. Take Armour Proficiency until you have space, or just skip Psychic.

Magus should be more than just "you need everything to align and get lucky to get overkill damage".

It lacks on a lot of aspects.

And you shouldn't need to use archetypes to fix broken aspects of a class.
If you need it to function, the class should have it to begin with

If you managed to survey everyone that plays you'd find you're not in the majority with this opinion.

Big number go brrrrr is the main draw of the class. The rest literally does not matter to a lot of players. They only want the a little to get big crits and will gladly take being mediocre to have the highlights.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Str based magus can focus on: Str, Con, Int, Wis.

And, in the process, have absolutely terrible Ref saves. This is why you should probably not dump Dex even on a Strength Magus.

Sentinel, done.

Thinking Magus is fine just because its crits are putting up big numbers is missing the bigger picture, honestly.

This is quite literally the point of the class.

It's the main draw for most people that use it.

Well it would allow you to support character concepts like "my monk doesn't want to be laden down with material attachments" without becoming unplayable.

I think as-is, it's a moderate downgrade, instead of a crushing downgrade (not using items and not getting ABP either). For a couple of reasons;

1) ABP bonuses arrive "on time", while loot tends to be slightly "early". An ABP character is gonna get Striking at level 4, period. A regular character might find a Striking weapon at level 3 according to the loot table, just on time for the bossfight at the end of the first AP book after which you level up to 4. The loot tables give you above-level items as a way of making adventuring THE best way to get shiny stuff, earlier access than crafting or buying. Risk reward and such.

2) ABP bonuses aren't very flexible. Items allow you to prioritize more.

3) A true vow of poverty would go further than cutting out the items that ABP covers.

4) ABP is more geared towards the needs of martial than casters, it doesn't cover staves etc.

So it might be desirable to give some kind of extra boost beyond ABP alone. On the other hand, is it really "poverty" if it doesn't hurt at all?

---

For the rest of the party, yeah I'd just remove one share of loot drops as a GM.

---

Overall I like the idea though. It allows another range of character concepts that would otherwise conflict with the "items are power" ethos of the game. And it could also cater to grumpy old geeks who want to play the game, but don't really want to play the equipment game.

It's a side grade at worst.

If they're a DEX character (they probably are) then being naked is an AC boost at 17.

They get perception boosts that I don't think I've ever seen someone take an item for.

They can boost skills that otherwise can't be boosted, such as Esoteric Lore for things other than Recall Knowledge, like Exploit Vulnerability or eventually with Tome initiative.

They have significantly more offensive flexibility since they get to boost everything instead of probably just one weapon.

They're going to much more consistently have on level bonuses.

I wouldn't do only one person on ABP. You lose Runes, which ABP kinda recommends not using anyway, and you lose having magical attacks, which a few classes and ancestries/heritages don't care about anyway. Monk, the most likely martial for this, gets that for free at 3.

On the note of Familiars. Familiars in the Remastered edition no longer allow you to replace dead familiars with a week of downtime. While for some reason Animal Companions retain this ability.

Retrain the pet feat into the pet feat.

The Magus is hands down the best class for attacking almost every weakness in the game...

I feel like Thaumaturge would disagree.

The number of property runes a weapon or armor can have is equal to the value of its potency rune.

Runes: GM Core pg.224

Before Battle Harbinger I felt like this was probably a deliberate change, probably in the sense of "this is what they intended originally and we were all doing it wrong, so they clarified it."

... but then Battle Harbinger showed up with the old wording and now I don't really know what to think. Because it's not a confusion problem if an even newer thing can use the old wording still.

So is this a nerf or just a wording error?

The Battle Harbinger but makes me lean towards it being intentional and the better version moved to them for...reasons?