Guntermench's page

"It is fine for this one character a player gets to play to have this one ability a few levels early" is really not the same at all as "lets make new ancestries that just give multiple high level feats away for free and never go back and touch old flying ancestries..."

...which I agree would be a very problematic power creep problem. I really don't think that is likely. It is good that there are narrative assumptions about Pathfinder that are different from Starfinder. They are two different games and they fill different genres, with different audience expectations. Even if it was decided it was fine to let flight be one of those 1st level common abilities in PF2, it would be problematic not to errata everything that should give a level 1 flight speed into just doing so. I just don't think such an effort would be worth while as it would span stuff from multiple different books and change word counts significantly for pages where an ancestry had multiple feats tied up in it. I just see no vaule in worrying that something like that is in the pipeline just because a couple of Society players got special access to making one character with a special cross-game ancestry.

You can not think it's likely all you want, but you can't say it's impossible.

They have encouraged people to use both systems together despite the difference in baseline assumptions. The door is now open, the cat is now out of the bag. This is not a Society issue. This is a "it's literally on page one of Starfinder 2e" issue.

Teridax wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I don't think one time events really get to decide "power creep" for a system. It is not the system itself breaking.

As mentioned already in the comment you are quoting, I am not claiming this is power creep, so I’m not sure where your reply is really coming from. I am, however, pointing out that the issue being discussed stems from cross-pollination between the two systems, which is not a “one time event”, and I don’t think you get to be the sole decider here of what does or doesn’t count as breaking the system, by whatever vague and undefined metric it is we’re even using. There clearly are issues porting content from one system to the other, and that much is worth acknowledging.

Unicore wrote:

SF2 is compatible with PF2 but will change many basic assumptions about the game. This is not something that should catch anyone by surprise.

Perhaps not, but the specifics of what those assumptions are easily can and clearly did. Knowing that the two systems are different does not mean everyone will automatically know what to look out for, otherwise those flying ancestries would likely not have been allowed in PFS without adjustments. If we want to avoid more of this in the future, whether in Society play or at people’s tables, we should probably make explicit what those systems implicitly assume to be different, and Paizo could do with giving us a conversion guide.

The Starfinder GM core has a specific section for dealing with this, on page 246. It talks specifically about ancestries and movement types. So the tools you are asking for already exist.

In this one specific instance, Society decided to allow something that pushes against the default assumptions of the pathfinder system. That is not a systemic issue, and it is not even really that big of a society issue because of the one character, one time nature of the boon.

The OP of this thread was talking about whether this was a sign of the floodgates of power creep on the PF2...

It does open the door though.

If they look at the results and go "this is fine", they'll be more inclined to add more stuff earlier.

Basically, one of my goals is trying to see if people have experience with significant Ready:____ use, so that I / thread readers don't stumble into some rules (or balance!) problem as blindly as they would have otherwise.

I have experience with this and the other common Ready question of trying to Stun things. In short: neither are fun.

For one thing a fight that should have taken maybe an hour at most took two, and that's only because we eventually agreed to pretend the tactic didn't exist after nothing had happened for a little over an hour. It had very rapidly devolved into no one doing anything because avoiding damage took up most resources and while one could consider it tactical I and everyone else considered it to be a waste of time.

The only tactics I've seen like this that was cool was someone Readying to shove an enemy off a cliff as soon as another character had used Whirling Throw to get the target to the edge, and when I had a pair of NPCs team up to Disarm one of the players.

Edit: Also, I'm on the side that this shouldn't work the way you want it to regardless and have been since before this. It's just not good to allow to begin with, and if you want to get really picky about the rules as far as I know nothing says a target needs to stay in your reach for the duration of the Strike, they just have to be in range when you target them.

Gortle wrote:

Mangaholic13 wrote:

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.

That is pretty sad. Pretty much why I don't ever take something like this in PF2. They set the difficulty at 10 with all your modifiers in place for anything remotely meaningful.

Generally, meaningful isn't going to be basic though.

Even in the worst circumstances, you can perform basic tasks.

Keyword is "basic". Things a couple level lower than you, things your level with an easy or very easy modifier, trained and after not particularly long expert level flat DCs. All easily covered by Assurance no matter the situation.

It's not supposed to let you just do on level tasks always and forever.

I just apply the damage from indiscriminate AoEs to everything in the area. This includes structures and objects.

Alright I will clarify: they've wilfully ignored it in every discussion brought up about it on this forum and Reddit.

Because it's been brought up in all of them, and people just point at the gaining and losing actions and ignore you can't act and the supporting links entirely calling it flavour text.

That clears up a lot Guntermench. Thank you for posting those sections.

And I can see now there is no such parallel for the phrase You’ve become senseless.

The thing is...this has always been the wording. This has been the case since release, it didn't change with the remaster.

People just ignore it.

Like the stunned description and "you can't act". Is the inability to act descriptive? What does it mean if anything? Nothing else within the ability indicates an inability to take reactions, but some people seem dead set on saying you can't take reactions. And confusingly it seemed like at least one person said the "you can't act" was descriptive text and should be ignored, but also claimed you couldn't take reactions (which isn't otherwise supported in the text).

The only problem is "You can't act" gets it's rules elsewhere.

It's in the Step 2: Act rules of Turns:

If you can't act, you can't use any actions, including reactions and free actions.

It's right there. You can use no actions, reactions or free actions. You also can't speak, and that's in yet another spot, the Basic Actions rules:

As long as you can act, you can also speak.

Effectively, you are as screwed as if you're Petrified, Unconscious or Dead while Stunned, and more screwed than Paralyzed which has a slightly weaker version of being unable to act. The action cost is the duration of the effect and a secondary effect, not the whole of effect itself. For as long as you have the condition you cannot do anything.

But wait, if you get rid of flavour text then people will actually have to play Stunned correctly...

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:

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 shitload 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.

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

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.

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 shit 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.

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.

"Don't have great AC"

They have literally the average AC and absolutely nothing prevents them from carrying a shield. Nothing stops you from taking a feat or two to get heavy either.

Guntermench wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

...

And really I'd argue that being able to do that on exactly one class isn't good game design.

Because you think it is a niche that shouldn't exist? Or because you want multiple classes to fill it?

Another class or two being able to do that would be fine. (Especially if one were a caster -- though a caster Rogue is already easy to pull off.) More than 3 would be a problem.

Mostly just that they basically don't end up with any weaknesses and that's not good game design.

Like what actually is Rogue bad at? With that stat spread basically nothing. They're not actually weak at any particular save, especially given hero points exist. They can get literally every skill. They get the most skill feats and can theoretically hit 7-9 legendary skills, I forget what it is. They have legendary perception.

What, exactly, is Rogue bad at? Given every other class is actually bad at stuff. If they want to make every class not bad at stuff go for it, but I don't think that's what they're aiming for.

They don't need this. There's absolutely no mechanical reason for them to have this. There's no thematic reason for them to have this. Maybe against poisons specifically. But really this just looks like someone at Paizo loves Rogues and wants to play Riddick or something and decided to buff it so that they're basically perfect.

So no, I don't think uber-class is a niche that should exist.

There was somewhere in the past that said that for casters "class DC" is just your spell DC.

This has never been the case.

There are 100% people striking 5 times in an encounter with sure strike. They might be playing very specific games, but they exist.

Going from 5/10 rounds to 1/10 rounds is a hit.

I could understand if it was like Fighter's Bravery and only applied to poisons.

I'd still disagree, but it wouldn't be totally f%@#ing random.

Oh some people definitely take it too far in the name of optimization and it isn't necessary at all.

You are still observed is the thing. If it's by sight, per the description of the spell it should still hit because it doesn't really give a shit.

Someone posted this on Reddit.

Honestly I think it hit Warpriest the hardest.

Every Warpriest ice seen has been for a dirty that had access and used frequently with Channel Smite.

I would prefer consistency.

They want to avoid you being able to put all your eggs in one basket and outperform the people that didn't.

This has been a running theme of this edition.

I would not count on getting spell runes even with the heavy nerf of Sure Strike.

Having a "To look at" list would be extremely easy and not labour intensive, and shows they're looking at stuff. It doesn't necessarily need to be or mean "this is up for errata".

In variety maybe. In any singular skill the class adds almost nothing.

A party of 4 can do just as well without a Rogue as with one, provided there's any level of coordination in character generation.

And losing this feature doesn't change their supremacy in terms of versatility. There's absolutely no reason for them to have good damage, the most skills and feats, legendary perception, AND be the only class that gets the bump in all three saves.

Literally anyone can do that by just leveling Thievery and/or Stealth.

There's no reason for Rogue to get this benefit.

Specific only trumps general when it is being specific about doing so.

Which means that not explicitly stating concealment does not apply is not specific enough to change the general rule that you make a flat check if your target is concealed from you.

The part of this debate which I always find interesting is that people are willing to bend the heck out of what "automatically hits" means in order to bypass concealment, but if the target is hidden/invisible they jump right on to twisting words so that "you can see" isn't take as literally as they want "automatically hits" to be.

Personally I'm perfectly fine with invisibility eliminating every "you can see" option.

Homing missile? Nothing in the spell indicates that the shard has homing properties.

How else exactly does it always hit then?

The problem with Mountain Stance is not that it's benefits are poor, but in "how the GM might interpret the requirement 'you are touching the ground'." Since sooner or later you're going to have to fight a flying opponent.

Also getting absolutely reamed before your first turn.

Does the animist not also have an expert with evasion save? I know they did in the playtest.

I think it is fine. It makes that save a high risk/reward save. And it does nothing to help when the save DC is used. I still see more rogues die than any other character class.

It doesn't really make it a high risk high reward save. You're still going to get hit by random Fort saves, this just makes it "play the game, high reward for nothing".

I don't see anything giving Animist this benefit.

Until an entire system comes out that Kineticist can't use.

They are not incapable of benefiting from the entire system, only select feats.

That's always seemed intentional.

I wouldn't count on that getting a significant change.

Counterpoint regarding Arcane Cascade in particular: the polite option was taken for several years before Arcane Cascade was fixed.

A lot of the feedback on these forums in general is like that where a problem is identified and outlined and then f!#$ all is done about it and it's extremely rarely acknowledged.

Anatomy knowledge and the occult knowledge to manipulate the dead.