Indi523's page

I like most of Teridax's suggestions for the most part.

Star Sign sounds confusing to me, I'm not entirely certain what it is supposed to do, and as was mentioned, probably being a focus spell shouldn't have a specific number of activations, and needs to be more clear. The stealing spells also sounds confusing, but if it needs to stay, might be something to enable via a heightened version.

Thank you for your response

I hear you reading through it it needs more wok. Essentially you get a rune on your bonded weapon. You can empower that rune three times to counter another spell as it is being cast without expending a spell on your own and potentially avoiding the need to have that spell active but that might be too powerful the way counter spell works.

AS a bonus if you critically succeed at countering the spell you get to steal the magic, maybe even loading that spell into your bonded weapon.

I admit I am not explaining that well and as written it might not work at all. I will try and see if I can be less obtuse in the language.

Thank you,

I will see about making those changes you state. I agree that adding the spell rune could be overpowering but I wanted to follow the process the book uses. Maybe there is something else I can do there.

I guess part of the issue is I need to understand better how counter spell affects work. My initial worry regarding this was that one could really only counter one spell early on and Since clever counter spell was a higher level feat I did not think it justified to mirror that effect.

The idea is this is a high sorcery feudal world so while the fighters and champions take caviler archetypes and fill out the roll of knights on the battlefield, the wizards would take to dueling and thus learn to counter each others spell in battle.

This is my idea to fit a homebrew world first adapted to Pathfinder 1.0 to the 2.0 setting. At issue are the fact that the eight schools are no more. The area these mages reside are the horselords, with five kingdoms merging from hundreds over the last few years in response to a organized threat of hobgoblin witchs and hags who destroyed the elven and hill dwarf homelands and now threaten the kingdoms. The Horselords rely on mounted warriors and centaurs for calvary, traditional human armies with several orc tribes civilizing themselves and joining the Kingdoms to avoid the Winter Witches as well as Mountain Dwarves and gnomes with clockwork vehicles and mechanical monstrosities fueled by arcane pitch (oil and tar that burns) and guncotton (gun powder). In this world in order to activate the power of the burning pitch or fire a weapon based on guncotton one must be a stonekin, blessed by elemental earth. This is for the most part dwarves, gnomes and a few other creatures only.

The Humans had mages which specialized in each school who were trained in arcane dueling. With the changes in Pathfinder wizards I was forced to rework this. Here is my shot at dueling magic schools and arcane thesis which tend to go together and would be what a traditional mage of the Octinity (This eight gods who are avatars of one God that make up the most prevalent church.

My original description was much more powerful. This is me toning it down. Hopefully it is balanced. The idea is a school of magic and a thesis that is taught specifically to train mages for spell duels, fighting with weapons and suing weapons as focus for spells while excelling in countering spells. Please let me know if this works, doesn't work, needs nerfing, buffing, etc.

Wizard (Disparen Arcane Thesis)

The Disparen tradition focuses on wizard dueling which focuses on the Hexenklinger also know as the Arcane Blade or MageKnife. This is a weapon designed to be magical tool bonded to the wizard to prepare them for dueling. There are various types of weapons that the wizard can bond with which the wizard will train in both martial and magical combat. These weapons included in the training for this thesis are the Dancing Spear, Main Gauche. Short Sword, Staff, Sword Cane and Rapier. If selected, the weapon will count as a simple weapon for the wizard with this thesis. If they select a staff it will count as a finesse weapon. At 11th level, the Disparen Wizard may add a second type of weapon. Either of these weapons may be bonded to the Wizard at the beginning of the day. The second weapon will also
gain the benefit of weapon runes.

Each weapon chosen that may be bonded will benefit from the following two runes, A Weapon Potency Rune at +1 and a Spell Reservoir Rune which allows the wizard to cast a spell of a rank they can cast, but no more than 3rd rank. See the Active Channel Release, Safe Channel Release and description of the Spell Reservoir Rune. In addition to the spell that may be added into the Spell Reservoir Rune attained the Mage with this thesis may choose one cantrip which they add to the arcane weapon they bond with. This cantrip is a bonus which is added to the wizard's repertoire every day in addition to other cantrips he knows. Each day when spells are prepared that cantrip can be replaced by one the Wizard knows. The cantrip is considered part of the the spells known.

At 11th level the caster has a choice. Either bond a second weapon that can be used with the original or craft an alteration to the original weapon such that it can be transformed into another weapon. IF two weapons are chosen then both combine to form the Arcane Bond and thus the caster needs both weapons in hand to use the bonded effects.

Traditionally Disparen Mages are taught to either choose a rapier that can be changed into a staff or a dancing spear or to choose a combo of a rapier and a main gauche. If a second weapon is chosen then it will also have a +1 weapon potency rune and another spell reservoir rune however the Spell Counter bonded with the weapon requires both weapons. If a choice is made for a weapon that transforms then the weapon will have a +2 Potency rune and two Spell reservoir runes.

Note the weapon potency can by added to attempts to counterspell while the wizard holds this weapon. The weapon may be used as a focus to cast spells and if so the weapon potency can be added to the spellcasting to hit roll as well.

Arcane Bond

Note: a Wizard that takes the Disparen Arcane Thesis will ususally learn the Disparen Dueling Arcane School. When the wizard takes both the Disparen Arcane Thesis and Disparen Arcane School then the Arcane Bond ability is altered in this way. The bonded item of the wizard must be the weapon or weapons which are dedicated to the Wizard in their thesis. The wizard does not gain the drain bonded item free action but instead gains the free action Select Spell Counter. The wizard may at the time that they prepare spells choose one spell to be loaded into their Bonded item as the Spell Counter. These are the spell or spells loaded into the Spell Reservoir runes. Once per day you may use the spell loaded as the spell counter to fuel a counterspell feat attempt of a spell another wizard has cast. The first time that this is done the Spell Counter is not expended. The second time however the Bonded item drains the spell loaded into Reservoir Rune.

The Spell Counter must be a spell that can be utilized to counter the spell being cast. IF the wizard takes the clever counterspell feat then the number of spells that can be countered is increased.

Disparen Dueling Arcane School

Those who learn to use Mage Blades to fight in the wizard duels make the most of martial skill with weapons and the ability to use those weapons as arcane focuses for their magic. Each student of this school gains the Counterspell feat at first level if they do not know it. A student may also use the weapon as an arcane focus for their spells and can cast spells with an attack roll using the weapon,
gaining the ability to add the weapon potency bonus to their spell casting attack roil.

Spells: Shield, Telekinetic Projectile (Cantrip) Hydraulic Push, Mystic Armor, Runic Weapon, Sure Strike (1st) Blazing Bolt, Telekinetic Maneuver (2nd) Ghostly Weapon, Gravity Well, (3rd) Flicker, Weapon Storm (4th) Blink Charge (Secrets of Magic pg 98) Forceful Hand (SoM pg 106) (5th) Wall of Force, True Sight (6th) Project Image, True Target (7th) Disappearance, Summon Archmage (SoM pg 131 ) (8th) Falling Stars (9th)

School Spells: Initial Warding Sign Advanced Star Sign

Disparen Dueling Magic School

Warding Sign
Focus 1 - 2 Actions
Range 30' Target One Creature
Duration: One Minute
You place a sigil on your self or a willing creature and it glows with a dark violet magic. The sigil must be placed on armor if the character is wearing it or clothing if not wearing armor. If may be placed on a shield as well but will only be active when the character has a shield raised so this might not be an optimum choice. This sigil glows on the creature protected and is activated whenever they are targeted by as spell. The character will gain a +1 circumstance bonus to all saving throws from spells while the rune is in effect.

While the spell is active the person wearing the rune benefits as if his armor, clothing or armor has the spell watch rune. This means once per turn the receiver of the benefits of the rune gains a new save to a spell that was failed. If this spell is successful the spell will end with no effect.

Focus 4 Spell Sign

Focus - 2 Actions
Range: Self
Duration: Ten Minutes or until triggered three times.
Like the Warding Sign spell this creates a rune in the shape of a star sign on the Arcane Bond (weapon) of the wizard casting this spell. For the duration of this spell the Spell Counter used is altered by the magic of this spell. Whenever an attempt is made to counter a spell using the counterspell action the magic of this spell will form a temporary matrix which will other match and empower the countering of the spell as a reaction to a spell being cast at the desire of the holder of the star sign. The rune will flash a brilliant green color and after the third counter spell attempt this spell will end. This will not use up or alter the spell counter already loaded into the wizard's bonded dueling weapon.

If the attempt to counter a spell suing star sign was successful and the was spell countered was five ranks or more below the roll required to counter the spell or if the counteract\ result was a critical success and the rank of the spell was two or more below the level that can be countered then the wizard steals that spell. They regain a spell slot which has been already cast and they can either roll randomly among the spells of that level that they know and gain a spell slot with that spell cast or withing ten minutes take a minute to relearn any spell of the rank or less that they already know. IF the counteract attempt was a critical success they may roll twice among the spells they know and choose the one they like.

[QUOTE=" I got to thinking about how they might function within parties and the wider setting.

I think it goes without saying that the "ethical necromancer" is a popular anti-hero kind of character throughout fantasy media, making agreements with living people to gain permission to use their remains after death, returning their reanimated servants to death when they're no longer needed, using their dark powers to stop truly evil villains, etc.

T

The way I see it the reason that undeath is unnatural and frowned upon as sinister by most of the gods is that it keeps a soul from crossing over into the outer realms where they belong once they have died. The spirit either stays on the mortal plane a ghost or specter or becomes an intelligent undead of some point clinging to unlife in the plane of the material. This is anathema to most gods as it strips them of power. One or two souls lost this way might not be a big deal but an army of undead would be significant for various reasons.

So what would a God who instructed his followers to seek unlife in the mortal plane be like. What would his doctrine and church teach and why? I have created such a God I call Oath Breaker and he is the patron God of Vampirism. He started out as a scribe in the celestial court of the gods and through betrayals he ended up cursing other deities in retaliation and was kicked out of heaven.

He rejected the Celestial Court as a whole including those in the underworld who from his point of view were just another sector of that court. He developed the idea that one should seek to be free of the outer realms by finding immortality on earth. While any form of intelligent undead could be find, he supported vampires. Most of his followers are Dhampyres trying to attain this form of enlightenment. His church teaches that one should seek immortality on the mortal plane and that only the worthy will be given this gift.

Mindless undead would be akin to slaves among the living. While LE he accepts any Lawful follower.

The Good followers seek a from of immortality through unlife that minimizes the need to feed and so this followers seek ethical lichdom or other forms of unlife.

The lands where this god holds sway are a form of Dhampyres who control the kingdom. In this land undead are allowed but are controlled by the law. So one can create skeletons but not ghouls as they are not controllable.

For the Dhampyres in this world there is one caveat. While a Dhampyre can impregnate a woman or become pregnant the child suffers from being half dead and without any assistance the child will eventually be the victim of a miscarriage and be stillborn late into the pregnancy. They only way to counteract this is at the right time a ritual is performed where a sentient creature is forced to give up their life. This sacrifice will allow the new Dhampyre child to be born alive.

The ruling class handles this by using slaves or condemned criminals who are sentenced to die. This leads to a major debate between the right hand and left hand Dhampyres as to morality of it. Those on the right hand path reject sacrificing others and one parent, usually the father, will agree to sacrifice their life so that their children can be reborn. Those on the left worry more about power and will use slaves if evil or condemned criminals if neutral.

The right hand path or LG Dhampyres then become weaker as they cannot increase their numbers and at best can remain the same.

In this society, being undead can be ethical in its own way while still being in conflict with other living kingdoms around it.

You can't normally act as a mount for a fellow PC unless they're two sizes smaller than you (Most Dragonkin are large). There is a 5th level feat that lets them have a rider one size smaller than them, but unless you take a specific heritage you can only do that for a single PFS character you designated at character creation. Outside of combat, It's up to the GM whether you can carry someone in a non-mounted fashion, but there's no rule against Dragonkin and Contemplatives flying while encumbered, so I can see some players arguing that if they can carry a dead body of a PC, they should be able to carry a living one as well

The chapter on system compatibility in the SF2 GM Core does say GMs can mkve ancestral flight and climb speeds to feats in home games, though, as well as potentially making feats tied to special senses higher level.

So ultimately it's down to GM discretion outside of PFS.

Why am I getting sparrows carrying a coconut type vibe reading your comment =(*

Honestly the weapon would be pretty close to a Glaive.

Or better yet the Monk's Spade!

Classes sell books. I'm pretty sure that as long as Second Edition is still in active development, we can expect about two classes each year. That's been their business model so far, at least.

For me it is not so much about classes but new archetypes that I am looking for especially if they recreate some of the flavor from fist edition Pathfinder which can be added back.

For instance there was an archetype modification of the bard that was an archeologist ala Indiana Jones. It would be great to see that as an archetype one could multiclass into with the second edition rules.

I don't think they need more than 25 classes. They can achieve what they want and more with more archetypes.

Spell resistance was r

Yep, that "+1 status to all saves vs. magic" makes them more resistent to magic than against other effects that target saves (like Alchemy or Athletics). That's the new "spell resistence".

So there's some ideas to play with. You can create a pseudo-globe of invulnerability effect by giving it an aura that automatically counters all spells below rank X, for example. Or make it a reaction so it can't do it an infinite number of times.

Quote:

I would like to see some mechanic that makes devils/demons etc. harder to affect with magic.

I guess I could make a diabolic item that works like a dispelling globe the other poser was kind enough to share.

You can use premaster stuff like Globe of Invulnerability if you want, too. It's still legal.

Cool, I knew that they would do something on paper that made up for spell resistance. I missed that glazing over the monster text. Thanks.

Spell resistance was removed because its just not necessary anymore. With 4 degrees of success and the worst results now being critical failures, and with save DCs keeping up better than in PF1, there's no real need for it. Having it would make too many spells have multiple rolls of failure where they don't do anything, and that's not very fun.

It was there in 3.x/PF1 because so many spells were "this ends the fight if it lands" and enemies needed a defense against that.

Interesting,

So a powerful creature such the Nyssari Tyrant Devil from the Monster Core.

They no longer have spell resistance and instead just have high save DC's, is that right. By that I mean a save artificially greater than a similar creature that would not have one of the same power. Or do they just not worry about it.

I would like to see some mechanic that makes devils/demons etc. harder to affect with magic.

I guess I could make a diabolic item that works like a dispelling globe the other poser was kind enough to share.

Hmmm.... just musing aloud.

Recently got the itch to play a martial character whose weapon of choice is some kind of reinforced metal-handled shovel, and I figure I'd need to homebrew it considering the alternative would be the Weapon Improviser archetype, which would be more along the lines of having a golf bag of normal shovels so I never run out of them when they break, which while a funny mental image isn't quite what I'm looking for.

So, what kinda weapons should I be looking for as "bases" to extrapolate from? What traits should it have? Should it be versatile S to simulate making swings with the edge or solely bludgeoning? Should it be a standard-length shovel as a two-handed weapon, or more like e-tool length and wielded with a pick in the other hand?

Honestly the weapon would be pretty close to a Glaive.

I mean, considering that both spells involve evoking a fear of death... with an undead has already experienced, can't say it's surprising that they wouldn't be spooked in the slightest.

Although... how does this apply to intelligent constructs and other "not actually living, but not undead" beings?

I think that in the past Phantasmal Killer was an illusion spell and it only worked on a creature with a mind.

So I would say depends on the undead. Possibly this could kill a specter or ghost especially if they do not know they are dead because it overloads the mind thus destroying the void energies keeping it sentient.

But maybe not a vampire which would not normally be subject to death from damage i.e. you need a stake through the heart, etc. Perhaps it would force the vampire into its mist like state requiring it to regenerate.

Not sure but that is how I would rule it.

So I am going through the spell rules and spells for the remaster Player's Core and I see certain spells such as Globe of invulnerability or Anti Magic Cone seem to be no more and have not been renamed or changed.

Add to that Spell resistance is no longer part of the rules.

What abilities other than countermagic will protect from a spell being cast exist.

Why was this change made?

{Scratching my Head}

Bluemagetim wrote:

consider the wizard at level 13 can casting group haste and eclipse burst in 3 encounters straight, a sorcerer is making choices with the 3 rank 7 casts they have the wizard is choosing to do both every encounter.

It's not the first time you said something like this, you also mentioned it earlier:

Bluemagetim wrote:

Th

In comparison to a sorcerer having 4 spells everywhere and 3 level 7. So the difference is not as big as you make it out to be. I did tout that in my guide, but the remaster changed everything.

Here is the difference, if I have played a wizard from 1st level to 10th level I will have a number of starting spells and add two per level to my spell book. Because I am paranoid I will take the down time needed to have three copies of my books, one hidden in a space I only know, one in my lab which includes notes and a traveling version for memorizing on adventures, at higher level stored in an extradimensional place for hiding.

I am going to bother every wizard I meet for spells, trading when I can. For those I don't I will bargain especially if I want that spell and don't want to wait a level for it. I will also hoard ever scroll found and learn the spell on the scroll then make two copies of it, one for me and the other for the party. I will do favors for wizards we meet including side quests if it is on the way including obtaining rare ingredients, etc. in exchange for spells.

I will also start making as many scrolls of spells I know in the down time with several scrolls for spells like force barrage (old magic missile) or fireball. Where I can I might start crafting wands with spells I know for extra ammo.

The Sorcerer could do this but their spell list is limited and they don't get craft related feats the way a wizard does for scrolls. There list of scrolls or magic items will be more limited in range.

Sure the DM may step in and place limits but over time the wizard players will end up developing this anyways.

A lot of people are downplaying the ability of wizards to learn spells but I do not think they are experienced wizard players. The ability to learn spells is very important.

Now the cheese factor here is a wizard that takes the cleric dedication or sorcerer or witch dedication to gain access to other spell lists. More scrolls and more spells learned by wizards. Swap out sorcerer spells at every level but copy them to scrolls and learn them as wizards first. They just have to also be on the wizard list.

I don't know about the rest of you but I could build a powerful wizard if I roleplay it from level one on.

You all getting in the weeds with poor excuses for this game mechanic. I will leave you with a solution and I will start dismounting when I get next to a bad guy so Im not nerfed compared to other animal companion users.

If your companion moved on it current turn it shares map. If it did not move on its current turn it does not share map

Also a mount still can count as cover even if you are not riding it and it can be a flank buddy if you are not mounted on it. So these things go both ways...give and take

Read all my replys before you comment anymore please and thank you

First off, if we look at the totality of history the primary use for calvary was to get into position and then dismount to fight. So there is that.

It was not until the invention of the saddle and stirrups allowing a man to direct a horse that calvary became mounted while attacking.

What you seem to be missing is all the great benefits of the Cavalier Dedicated subclass from commanding mounts easier, to protecting mounts from being hit, to Striding twice and attacking at any point in the movement to setting up for a trampling charge.

Add to that Nature skill feats like Train Animal, Bonded Animal or Express Rider buffing the mount and the Ride feat giving you the advantage of treating him as a minion 2 action for that one verbal command with no check to control.

You have to factor these feats and training in because it makes the difference between a professional rider to a yahoo that decided to just jump on the back of a horse.

I see no real advantage with the arcane list. To me it is the least interesting spell list even if the longest. You have only so many slots a day to use and only so many actions a round for combat, so you have to use spells that will impact with the actions used.

The Power of the Wizard going back to when it was the Magic User class in AD&D has always been access to spells and the ability to create scrolls.

Every time a wizard finds a scroll, if it is on their list, they can learn the spell adding it to their spell books. This gives the wizard access to a great much more variety of power than any of the sorcerer or the Warlock that can spontaneously cast. Sure they access anything on their list of spells known but their knowledge is limited by level.

A wizard through experience, adventuring, finding scrolls, sharing with other casters, buying spells for other guild mages could have every spell on a list known if they can find it and pay for it.

The wizard would make up for their limited spell slots and the fact that they can create scrolls meaning that if they have preparation they are the strongest caster in the party but once they have used up resources they are the weakest.

Too often DM's overlook this in game because it is book keeping but it has always been why a wizard is powerful.

Know here is where a wizard really shines. They class as wizard but pick up say the sorcerer dedication and then pick a Primal or Divine or Occult list from the choices of patron, type etc. They choose the Basic Spellcasting, Advanced and Master getting spells of first to eighth level in the other list meaning they can create scrolls or cast from those scrolls, etc.

This is what truly makes a wizard powerful, versatility of magic.

I am not sure how well of an advantage that is in second edition yet. Dynamic has changed but Wizard does have the ability to learn spells.

This Is my personal argument on why companions are lame/bad.

So! First, definition: animal, construct, undead companions.

Second, argument: companions, in my opinion, are inherently flawed and contraddict aspecta of pf2e's interior design:

1- they require a massive feat taxi which offers almost purely vertical growth, to have your companion you MUST spend at least 4 feats which all give your companion REQUIRED numerical growth, aka:
-feat tax
-feat chain
-vertical growth
And those are all things that pathfinder 2e specifically tries to avoid mixed up!

2- they're lame as hell, companions have practically no customization, with construct literally having none at all, and every item Is utterly useless; if you wanna focus on your companion there's literally nothing you can do (Napoleon meme), they're Stuck with being the same from level 1 to level 20

3- they scale horribly, this Is caused by Two things.

1- the gaps between feats are too big, companions generally start to really suffer from level 11-13 and from level 17-20 because their scaling Is tied to feats! And there aren't any to cover those specific levels!

2- their numbers are Simply too low, look, i understand that their only utility Is being a meatshield and grappling but It comes to a point where the player's map actions are Better than the companion's non map actions!

I think that a good DM should be flexible. Allow a character to increase the animal companion based on the feats one uses.

At level one you might start with a bird but by level 1o maybe a Griffon.

One does not need to alter the way the system works, you could use the bird stats including additions for mature and incredible companions if the feat are taken with higher CR creatures requiring higher levels minimum. You could also add abilities or adjust damage to align with the creature etc.

Males sense to a 15th level PC with a bird has a bird with 6 Plus con bonus per your level or starting at 90 hp. That is a pretty tough bird. Why not allow the party member to call it a pigmy rock or a griffon if it is mostly just flavor. A good DM can decide what is practical and what is OP.

I had a ranger with a nimble bird, using the better (more AC) old rules. Worked fine till somewhere over 10, after which the bird died almost every encounter, even with the higher AC. So that was the end of the bird.

High AC and low damage works fine. Nimble should be default. When AC is good enough, it doesn't really matter that damage is low and you can choose to use their support action. Feat investment is high, too high I would say.

But with the current AC's I'll never take them again.

Why again can you not add magical items to your companion.

I mean a bracelet for their legs that adds to dexterity, or adds force armor or other protection spell. Possibly wraps that give runes to beef up the unarmed attack.

Is this use a magic denied?

PF2 changed Summon spells so they create simulations of creatures, not summon actual creatures. So no moral quandaries, but also no relationships, souls, bargains, etc. No permission from gods necessary either since Divine casters that hate gods can cast them too.

There are Rituals already for actual summoning, like Planar Servitor. Though it does mention having to call upon a deity, it also allows other divine powers instead. Most importantly, you don't have to be a Divine caster (or caster at all). As for swapping out promises/blood/bargains for the actual payment, that'd be GM territory.

Oh, and they're not Outsiders anymore. They don't share a mechanical trait. In fact, the Planar Servitor doesn't have to be planar, though it's implied since the divine entity does the choosing.

Then there's Binding Circle, where the target is extraplanar.

Both of these are in the Remaster, so quite up to date & suitable, but Uncommon which is normal for Rituals so GMs have to opt in to this style of narrative.

Yes thank you, amazing how them renaming the spells makes it difficult for me to find them. The Binding Circle is exactly the one I am looking at, one where you have to coax the creature to help you. I assume since it does not matter what kind of caster you are witch means I can have occult witch's making constructs and binding demons and even calling ghosts (Call Spirit).

Thinking about it it works better as a ritual. PC's engaging in this do so in their downtime etc. This lessons the munchkinization of it.

This is good, thank you.

Much like a bunch of spells in PF2, they responded to a real problem in PF1 by nerfing it in too many directions at once.

Sustain goes a long way to addressing the issue, since you can't just keep chain summoning while Invisible the way you could in PF1. They also could have added a thing so you can't have more than one summon active at once, and the problem is largely solved.

But they also made most of the summons really bad. That's why folks lean on summons that have special abilities: you're not summoning them for direct combat power because any encounter actually worth blowing a high rank spell slot on will find a summoned monster trivial. They function as decoys to soak attacks and that's about it. Most players don't find that very fun, so usage of summon spells has fallen off a cliff.

I've only seen one person even attempt to build a "small-s summoner" in PF2 and they were really unsatisfied with it.

Summom at 1st Rank is creature level -1 with 5th rank at 5th level up to 15 at 10th. You can get higher level creatures by heightening the spells but you cannot get more of them. I am not sure how I feel about that.

Utility is limited by the fact the spells only last one minute with sustaining I don't think summoning an army of CR 1 or less skeletons to keep a tribe of kobolds busy so the party can slip away is that overpowered

Given the creatures are so under leveled compared to the party as it is I would have no problem with a caster dropping the CR level by one rank to double the number of creatures summoned.

So I know there are a lot of potential debates about whether PF2 would benefit from having a full class for the old PF1 ninja, but I think a better starting place for figuring out how such a class would benefit the game is by really trying to dial in what unique mechanic the class would have, and then it would be much easier for people to move past debating whether the class is just a rogue archetype or not?

Sneak attack can be taken when a target is off guard which can happen do to distractions, etc.

Ninjas kill by striking from out of now where in an ambush. So Ninja's effect is they get precision damage and other effects but only when they are undetected by their prey.

This means the effect won't occur in every battle and is most likely to occur when the ninja sets up an ambush and figures out how to stay hidden from the target such they do not even know the ninja is there (undetected) which is the hardest condition to obtain with stealth.

This means that all of the magic and other abilities the ninja uses such as walking through walls, hiding in plain sight appearing and disappearing in clouds of smoke are not just flavor for the ninja but rather they are in fact necessary to achieve their objective.

Since the developers of Paizo are keen on not using certain specific cultural items overtly one could have Ninja be any number of guild assassins. From western assassin guilds, Thuggee cults from India, Arab Eagle's nest assassins, certain dark kung fu monks as well as Japanese Ninjas.

The idea is the assassin is geared to ambushing their targets. Would be a very specific class for guerilla warfare type campaigns but it could be fun.

The Assassin (Ninja) could have other effects, poison, paralysis attacks, magical spell effects that eat the soul etc. which they could have feats for that would add to their attack with more than just precision damage.

This would be IMHO enough of a different mechanic from the rogue who only has to get enough of his allies to attack a target with him to get them merely off guard.

I am looking at how the summon spells are handled and noting a few items.

Aberrations (Entities) are occult though arcane does this too.
Elementals (Inner plane) are arcane and primal

Fiends are specifically Divine.

This spell however appears to be the Gods granting their servants the ability to control the denizens of their demesnes.

Are we going to get the ability to see Occultists and Arcane casters opening rifts to certain realms to invite a fiend or other denizen to come through and bargain with the caster for services which dates back to the old Cacodemon spell from 1at edition.

This is the chance to get a favor for a cost.

Will this perhaps be in ritual magic that will come out.

Or is access to creatures of the outer planes going to be specifically the bailiwick of a divine caster only.

Will we have a book scheduled to go over fiends, angels, etc.

Just Wondering!

Thank you to everyone that replied.

I really appreciated your insight!

Thank you to everyone that replied.

I really appreciated your insight!

Indi523 wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Yes, Archives of Nethys has searchable lists by tradition which are updated fairly soon after new Paizo books are released. Couldn’t you link four of your gods to the four Traditions of magic and the remaining four to the elements of the four traditions (e.g. matter, mind, life, and spirit)? It might take a little work adapting your current gods, but that seems a LOT easier than starting again from ground zero.

I could but the original God was only Arcane magic, not divine.

The idea was based on the old paradox Did God create Man in his Image or Man create God in his image.

The revelation happens when 100 constantly warring fiefdoms declines to five major kingdoms controlled by one Church to reflect Europe's middle ages.

The religion changed to each of the eight are avatars to the One God, not knowing until their heritage was revealed to them. The church referred to this as the OCtinity (Eight Gods in One).

Naturally the old ways are still practiced by some on the edges where each God is worshipped singularly and sects break out where one believes the old God remains dead and the Gods recombine on their own while others believe the one God has always been just asleep and each of the others are part of each other.

This gives a ruling church with an ideology that has to deal with older pagan religions and new heresy's so that wars become religious as well as secular and there is a tense rivalry between the Asprects (Bishop) ruling the Church and the Kings and Barons of the Kingdom who have secret political wars for power.

But that might be a good idea, just break each of the eight into one essense with one postive and the other negative. So Life is Positive healing energy or Negative Unlife energy etc.

Not sure, I have a lot of things to decide.

You could take a look at what Paizo did with the Rune Lord Archetype. They were also based on 7 of the 8 schools, and with the deletion of them, they shifted the delineation to the function of the spells without actually naming the schools.

What book are Rune Lord Archetypes in, please?

Indi523 wrote:

I would improve the wizard class in the game by having rules set up for players to reinvent magic. What things made a spell more or less powerful, etc. Encourage creativity while being fair on the level test. No if you make the spell that powerful Xador it will have to be a tenth level spell.

I wonder what a reasonable set of 'magic effects worth one rank' could be given to spells that make sense as a long-term modification to your spells rather than a spellshape. Or, well, actually just permanently adding a spellshape (for no action cost) is already pretty cool, isn't it?

Spellshape is 20th level, back in our day campaigns ended at 12th level.

I think there was an article is the Dragon Magazine the went through various sizes of cones, areas, etc. as well as damage type and dice and gave rules of thumb for creating spells. There were also other abilities as well.

The idea was you make up a new effect for your spell. Back then we added a lot of stuff to our characters and the game. The control was with the DM. This article gave the DM pointers on the power levels for spells that players brought to him to create.

Today that does not work because everything has to balance as if this were a video game.

Still there could be some abilities regarding creating new magic that happen in game. Depending on what was being tried inventing a spell could involve several quests and a lot of game time.

Then however spell casters powers were limited by time. You did not just get all your spell slots back with a long rest. Essentially memorizing a spell was one hour of study per level of the spell. You could only do so if you were well rested. Uninterrupted 8 hours of sleep the next day. That meant going into an adventure whatever spells you had available was all you will get until you left a dungeon. Made planning much more difficult.

However, parties would take weeks of downtime preparing for adventures in order to create scrolls, charge wands, etc. so that they had as much firepower as they could.

It therefore probably cannot be as open now as it was back then but perhaps feats and/or abilities that allow the creation of a set number of permanent items and scrolls that are consumed. Charges, potions or scrolls, etc. would make the wizard while less powerful more utilitarian always having something for every adversity.

Yeah, exposing the 8 schools model as a false construct imposed by the gods could shake up the setting in interesting ways. Maybe an outside force introduces/imposes the "heretical, but more accurate" 4 traditions + 4 essences model of PF2. Or even Starfinder's model (if SF2 kept the same one as SF1 rather than PF2's). These versions could be represented by different factions, with entrenched traditions resisting change that threatens their authority.

Aligning with the gods' 8 school model might be a display of faith more than knowledge, and that might include forgoing access to newer spells (those w/ no Legacy version to inform you what school they were). In the same vein, those who deny the 8 schools might lose Ray of Frost and other Legacy variants or Legacy only spells. It'd be PF2 old school (literally) vs. remaster academies/rebels/misotheists & apatheists perhaps among the non-Divine casters (maybe w/ new gods for the Divine ones). Essentially both variants of PF2 would be operating side-by-side with no need to convert and ample fuel to foster rivalries, maybe missions to steal/adapt spells from the other team (so you'd only have to convert as desired).

I'm getting geocentrism vs. heliocentrism vibes here, or a religious schism. One might go grim w/ an inquisition, war, purge, or such. Eek.

"So, are you a force barrager or a magic missiler?"
"What? I'm a Druid! That's why I have fireballs."
"When did Druids start casting those?"
"Are you serious?! A decade ago, before this conflict."
"I should probably kill you anyway, let the 8 gods sort you out."

Might be a way to go.

The idea is that the first god was all magic combined and when the world was created he went to sleep or died depending on the POV of who is telling the myth. From him the eight Aspects were formed each a fundamental portion of that magic but they did not know their connection. Then with the great revelation they learned they were all part of each other and thus could not destroy each other.

I used the eight schools because that is what was there.

The work on how they function, their clerics and oracles etc. were based on the type of magic. If they channeled the evocation god that day then they got +1 level to evocation spells and -1 to the two opposition schools etc. Things like that.

I would be more than willing to rework this based on matter, essence, spirt and life but unfortunately they don't list which essences each spell affects.

I got the secrets of magic though so maybe I can get some insight in how to adjust this to 2e.

Indi523 wrote:

HammerJack wrote:

Probably not.

But if you need the old schools for your game, nothing stops you from still using them, and sorting newer spells into them as you find appropriate.

Yeah that is a lot of work!

More work than creating an entire custom setting?

I am more than happy to use whatever breakdown Paizo wants to use for their system but it would be a lot of work for me to create a list of spells and sort them by the tags

I tried going an archive and Nythis but the site does not really segregate remastered from original 2e content that well.

Probably not.

But if you need the old schools for your game, nothing stops you from still using them, and sorting newer spells into them as you find appropriate.

Yeah that is a lot of work!

There's the four Traditions of magic. I don't expect more than that.

True broken out into Arcane, Primal, Occult and Divine but as I understand it magic is broken into four essences from which it derives.

Matter and Mind = Arcane
MAtter and Life = Primal
Spirit and Mind = Occult
Spirit and Life = Divine

There are also traits which are attached to spells such as Summon and illusion etc.

Is there a list where spells are broken out by the four essences or the other traits.

Anything that does that would help me rework my home campaign to the 2e world.

I know this is due to the need to break away from that other game and this is why we do not see the old eight schools of magic before.

I do see there are some tags such as charm, mentalism etc. but no lists that sort spells according to which has what.

Here is the thing. In my homebrew world started under Pathfinder 1e I had a set of principalities that all adhered to sects of the same religion.

It was all centered around eight major gods each one tied to the old schools of magic. Each god was not based on the magic but his realms supported the magics such as the God of Locks and safe passage who represented Abjuration magic etc.

Any rate the spells and settings are settings are all tied to the spells being broken out into these eight categories.

Is there going to be some classification of spells available in future supplements where arcane magic is broken into one of a set number of classifications?

Is there some form a cheat sheet someone has done for making conversions with this?

Or is there a new classification that I could use and adapt instead?

As a boomer there is one thing from the days of first and second edition that made the magic user i.e. the wizard of today powerful that I rarely see done now adays where everyone argues incessantly over game balance and that is the old art of the wizard in his studies inventing his own spell.

There were two benefits:
1) it did not cost you one of the spells you went up in as you level so it was an extra. The downside was you hade to research the spell and usually the DM would give you quests to find certain rare herbs, crystals, or obtain copies of rare volumes of magic which other wizards might guard. It would cost you time and money in game.
2) You got to add to your power level in ways that were unique to your character. Other wizards might seek you out to teach them your spell. Only you could make that spell. The way we played it the spell was unique to a sort of akashic memory and once you invented it, it became mired into the realm of the universe and no one else could research exactly that spell.

This was for me one of the best parts of playing a wizard. You played a class that could invent spells.

I would improve the wizard class in the game by having rules set up for players to reinvent magic. What things made a spell more or less powerful, etc. Encourage creativity while being fair on the level test. No if you make the spell that powerful Xador it will have to be a tenth level spell.

Another way I would improve the wizard is giving them more with magic items somehow. Maybe they can invest more items. Maybe when they make a wand or staff they can add four runes instead of three. Maybe an additional craft feat that is specific for wizards allowing them to craft wands and staves with spells they know or to be able to use magic aura reading and research to learn spells from magic items they study.

Lastly, make it easier for wizards to write scrolls in their downtime than other classes. Maybe to the point the cleric will work with the wizard to make clerical scrolls because of the added efficiency.

One of the benefits of being a wizard was when you ran out of spells in a day you could result to casting from scrolls. Especially utility spells, etc.

It would probably not be that difficult to work up rules in place that allowed wizards to capitalize on their downtime to make spells and items they can then use on adventure and to give the wizard a benefit to do so.

To start with the problem: although archetypes in general vary wildly in effectiveness and desirability in PF2e, dedication feats in particular tend to be the most underwhelming part of many archetypes

One thing I might add is that no thought is given to weapons and sometimes armor in many of the archetypes. Certain archetypes like the Mauler or the Martial artist will give you either access to certain martial weapons as simple weapons or the ability to use unarmed fighting, etc. as befits the class.

Others however do not. Off the top of my head the Pirate, Viking, Duelist, Dual Wielder, Cavalier do not grant the person taking the dedication any access to weapons or armor at all. Thus it means you could take cavalier as a wizard however without investing other general feats into weapons and armor you are using a quarterstaff from horseback and throwing darts. Similar with the other classes.

I think this is too limiting and something should be given. If not armor then perhaps the player can choose a couple of weapons from a list as simple weapons or an advanced weapon as a martial or something. So long as the weapon fits a theme such as a cavalier getting a lance, a sword, or other typical knightly weapons as simple to fit their theme.

This would be a reason you get something out of the dedication. Honestly I surprised these things were not addressed initially in the write up. Maybe the devs did not want wizards all having fighter weapons but these reasonable limitations might make up for that.

Pirates for instance could take siege weapons such as cannon or ballistae as simple weapons for their list as well given the need to use such weapons aboard a pirate ship adventure.

Playable dragons? Me likes!

So does that mean that to play a Dragonet Ancestry you have to be the Investigator class....

"Just give me the facts ma'am!"

{I'll see myself out}

You can certainly adjust the proficiency to a fraction of the level instead of level, but it will affect DC values and target DCs for skills etc.

As second edition is designed to make judging danger levels by Level being more accurate to better judge the risks, I would wholeheartedly suggest you not leave the monsters and other things the same and just acknowledge they are harder. You should probably adjust the values in your case approximately 2/3 of the way from normal, to the vale listed in archives of Beth’s for the proficiency without level variant.

Really you are getting close to DnD where they use 1/4 level to advance their proficiency value. I haven’t ever done it, but I can say I had contemplated 1/2 level very early on, but I just never actually tried it.

The difference here is the Pathfinder system has levels of proficiency for skills, spells , AC, attacks etc. that give that +2 through +8.

I like 1/3 because 20/3 is 6.67 rounds up to 7 for +7 while being legendary trained gives you a +8. Thus by upping a skill to legendary in training someone can still beat out a trained person at lower level.

The Difference with Pathfinder 2.0 that I like is the levels of training
Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master and Legendary.

To my mind this softens the spread. Low level trained mob at 1st lvl +0 with +2 for trained is a +2 while a 20th level legendary is +7 and +8 for a total of +15. This still make the spread +13 points.

To my mind that is not so much of a difference.

So the adjustment to monsters can be by creature level I think. Should not be to hard just reduce their DC, AC, Skill Checks and to hits etc. by the number below based on creature level.

In some cases such as dragons a DM might not reduce the checks and let the numbers go as stand to make them much tougher. Of course he should tell everyone this beforehand so they can make better choices and increase the reward possibly.

1 (0-1) -1
2 (1-2) -1
3 (1-3) -2
4 (1-4) -3
5 (2-5) -3
6 (2-6) -4
7 (2-7) -5
8 (3-8) -5
9 (3-9) -6
10 (3-10) -7
11 (4-11) -7
12 (4-12) -8
13 (4-13) -9
14 (5-14) -9
15 (5-15) -10
16 (5-16) -11
17 (6-17) -11
18 (6-18) -12
19 (7-19) -12
20 (7-20) -13

I am not a fan of the Proficiency bonus adding the entire character level. This makes the ability to hit things at 20th level impossible for 1st level characters.

I don't want the other games no increase for level either which is an alternate rule in the GM CORE

I would like to change the bonus to 1/3rd the level rounded up or down as normal. Thus at 1st level the bonus is +0 while at second level the bonus is +1 (2/3rd =0.667 rounds up to 1 while 1/3 =0.333 rounds down to 0, etc.

This gives a bonus range from 1st to 20th level of +0 to +7 added to proficiency and makes having legendary proficiency the most important bonus at +8.

I like this range. Player to Player this works well as everyone recalculates there bonuses based in the new proficiency.

It may require certain adjustments for monsters or flat DCs since higher powered DC's will become harder but perhaps this is OK. Just normally accept high powered monsters are more powerful and guide the party to treat them as such. It would place many dragons outside the easy kill range of a normal group.

Do you all think this could work? What changes to DC's, monsters or other checks do you thing should be made to make this work and what good or bad do you see with this?

This question is regarding the suggestion in the GM Core that you can remove levels from the Proficiency bonus in second edition. They suggest if you do this just add the +2/4/6//8 from the level of the skill or ability and not the level. To do so you should changed untrained to -2 instead of 0.

Fair enough but I like some variation by level I just don't want it to be a 19 point variance from level 1 to level 20. Every starting guy with a javelin should have some chance to hit through dumb luck.

I am thinking of adding the level divided by three rounded as normal. So at first level this is 1/3 or 0.33 which rounds to 0 while at level 2 this is 0.67 that rounds to 1. This way you add a number from 0 to 7 to the proficiency bonus. This makes the few skills and attacks that go to legendary that much more meaningful because the +8 bonus for the legendary status for the skill or roll is higher than the +7 bonus for the level.

I think this could still work. You could use monster stats from the books as is just so long as you understand by not nerfing their values for the monster stats make all the monsters a little tougher.

I don't know, does anyone thing that will work?

Hello

I purchased the 1e Ultimate Campaign Guide tonight and the website glitched. Had issues entering the data and somehow when I got the bank info to work they charged my 19.99 11 times and reveresed it five times.

Despite this I do not see the purchase available for download.

Could someone send me a private message or answer my email, I need to get this fixed ASAP. Please!

NPC design is very different in the new edition. With the new design philosophy, all first level creatures (including NPCs and even PCs) should be roughly equal in power, and NPCs do not have classes. Of course a level 1 barbarian is probably more powerful than a level 1 sorcerer in most combat situations, but that's the idea. Based on this, I don't think your level 1 commoner has roughly the same combative power as a level 1 fighter or wizard, and I don't think commoner as a class needs to exist. If you haven't seen it I would recommend looking at the Monster Creation Guide. You can use this same guide to make NPCs. A commoner could be a level -1 creature with these rules.

No offense but that can't work for every NPC. The King has to be more than a level one character but there is no reason from him to be a class and power level equal to a PC. thus what this guy is proposing is not a bad idea. Sure most NPC's in town may just be level one knockoffs but not all.

Personally I don't really like the idea of advancement or whatever for most monsters that are humanoid in design or intelligent. I like the idea of leveling them up via class ability because it allows me as a DM to better gauge power levels. I just cannot see it working.

I have expressed my displeasure with this from the Bestiary where creatures like say the drow are just listed with various hit points and powers. It is too cookie cutter and takes from creativity to make it simple. It sucks and for myself I will find a way to add levels the way you do in 1e because that makes more sense. I like the idea that a 20th level party can meet a group of goblins which are their equals.

Thus exploring another ways to do this with house rules works for me better.

Indi523 wrote:

The key to power in 2e as written is magic items. Scrolls of spells you can cast ups your ability to last in long fights. Wands can do the same thing. Crafting items starts later as you have to be expert in crafting to have the magical crafting feat however you only need that one feat TO make any magic item so the crafter does not need to devout every feat he gets to Craft Potion, Craft wondrous item, crsft weapon, craft armor, craft want etc. This means that PC casters should find it easier to make magic items for their own use especially scrolls and wands and the one staff they are allowed. The wizard to my mind needs to do this.

Crafting items in 2e is inefficient. There are very few cases where you would not be better served by buying the item you need and spending the time earning income in some other way. Or doing something more productive with your downtime, like taking a break and enjoying your ill-gotten loot instead of working for a living.

Magic item shops where you can simply buy a wand of whatever you like are too Monty Haul. Why, if crafting that wand is so difficult would a mage simply sell it. Even if inclined to sell it, if it is more time consuming would that not mean less product on the shelves. Magic items for sale should be rare. In fantasy literature when the hero needs an item he has to have it made. He does not go to the magical equivalent of Walmart.

Besides Wizards are supposed to spend all their down time studying and crafting things.

Spell list and spell known are different things.

Hmm read that one wrong. To my mind a wizard only has access to spells that he knows which is the list in his spell book so the terminology was confusing.

But that brings up a question regarding sorcerers.

If they have access to one of the spells in the staff because they either have that as a bloodline spell or one of the spells happens to be say a primal or occult spell as well. If the are spells that are arcane only and the sorcerer is primal and there is say one spell not accessible through bloodline. Can he use the staff to cast that spell.

I am assuming the answer to that question is No.

Still I actually like the version of my mistake better. If you find a magic item you have to learn the spell (if a wizard or sorcerer) to use the spell in the staff. I would give a circumstance bonus to attempts to learn the spell from the staff. Knowledge is power.

PS: You could then make various commoner type class feats that specialize in things NPC's typically do such as lawyer, apothecary, merchant, etc.

these feats should not be real useful in combat but would be useful out of combat for the utility things people do in down time out of town. A lot of it would be profession based.

In this way commoners that take these feats would experts etc.

Don't you love when you don't hit confirm?

Sorry, the link should be working!

...

I think this makes sense because while a farmhand may start out knowing nothing of combat, if you put him in with a group of adventurers and force him to fight goblins and such he will eventually learn the abilities of classes. It also means the class is not so bland for player characters.

I would like some advice on making outright orders of Tyrant-archetype Antipaladins: such as what kind of places could they be based in, what sort of missions they would embark on, what sort of internal relations they might have, etc.

I think the evil Champions are much harder to design for a game than the good ones. The "good" orders all have the need to cooperate and work together built in and a morality code is fairly simple to understand. There are variations but essentially it is what your mother tells you a good boy does at its core. The issue with the Good orders is to humanize them to make them more relatable so that the game with the Paladin in it does not become a Dudley DooRight cartoon.

Evil orders have the issue that betrayal and not following orders is built in so one has to work out how the order survives. Sure one could say Fear but what happens when the person in charge is taken down. Only if the person who did so is strong enough to control everyone else and has the desire to do that will the order survive this. Odds are that without some overriding philosophical belief to drive these backstabbers to work together then eventually the order falls apart. This means that passing on knowledge and tradition is limited.

This can be handled two ways. One is to assume the orders don't matter. Instead the knowledge of a tyrant or anti Paladin or Death Knight or whatever they call them is found and learned and the character can embrace the abilities of a Champion on his own. This might mean that the evil Gods have to make sure that prospective candidates are given insight or guidance. So appearing in dreams, ordering clerics to hunt for candidates and train them etc. In this fashion it does not matter that the Anti Paladins can't cooperate. This method might be the best option for Chaotic Evil.

The other method is to have orders that have philosophical goals or political goals that transcend simple morality which the evil characters probably don't care about much anyways.

So an order of Hobgoblin Tyrants may wish to bring back the Ancient Hobgoblin kingdom where the truly powerful race ruled the lands with an iron hand. In this case the leader could be betrayed but the remaining hobgoblin Tyrants are more willing to keep the order alive because it is useful in achieving this goal. This is a political goal.

A philosophical goal might be that only the church of insert your God here has the true way for the world. The precepts of this church must be applied by everyone in the land. Maybe other deities should not be worshiped or maybe the church should be the arbiter of justice or maybe this church's God is considered to be in control of designating who should rule. Whateve, it is, the members work toward this goal and so the order survives. Beyond that, betrayal itself, might have to be more carefully done so that the overall philosophical goal is not weakened by it. This is probably more suited to Lawful Evil.

Neutral Evil probably is more a cult of personality type situation.

This means that while you can just say "Oh it is an order of liberators" and the players immediately "get" how it works. It is all about freeing slaves, etc., this won't work for the evil order. Players wont know why the order works together and hey since they are evil they will just do what is evil and betray the order when they get powerful enough. The order had to be defined and essentially there requires some exposition in game where the players are shown what the tenants of that order mean to the group. This creates a code that is political or philosophical to replace the obvious moral code that all good groups will have.

This does not mean this level of nuance can't be applied to good orders. It is just that good orders don't require it to be worked out in order for the player to be part of it.

Just my two cents anyways.

Hey Guys

Someone just pointed to me where it was and it fixes the whole Bard dedication issue.

The feat Fascinating Performance covers the old 1e Bard ability and anyone can have it. It is a performance skill feat not a bard class feat.

Therefore the modification I am going to make is instead of getting the Bard Dedication feat for free everyone gets the Fascinating Performance feat at first level regardless of prerequisites. Still not useful if one does not have at least trained in Performance though so maybe they get that skill gratas as well but probably not. This encourages every character to take that skill.

This could result in interesting roleplaying. The tent maker for instance could wait till higher level to take the feat and the way we played this out is they surprise everyone by making a performance for the first time. This way players have fun with it. They can't wow the crowd since the start of the campaign but through roleplaying come out with a virtuoso performance. This would give options to add fun to the campaign.

I like it! Thank you guys for pointing this out.

Indi523 wrote:

One thing if I am reading it right is that Bards now no longer have the ability to fascinate someone with their performance.

Anyone can with this feat.

That is what I was missing. Thank you so much. It still is different but at least it is not gone.

However, at higher levels you do seem to lost the ability to fascinate more people.

Goldryno wrote:

So we've established that Powerful Leap is no longer a part of the equation here as Leap and Long Jump are different.

Not sure we have. The description for Leap, Long Jump and High Jump all imply that the latter two are modifications to the former, rather than entirely unique things.

Quote:

I would most likely go with the 1st interpretation as jumping 45 feet already stretches the imagination

Either way, it's a legendary action, so designed to be in the realm of superhuman, so I don't think how realistic it is or isn't has any bearing on what's the right call or not.

There still is confusion with your RAW interpretation. The Text under Leap says that the High Jump and Long Jump use the basic leap. Reading the High Jump and Long Jump a failure says "you leap normally". So I think what they are doing is giving the character the option to attempt a super leap with a check but if you fail this text box on leap defines how you move. Alternatively if you don't want to bother with rolling this is how you move.

Powerful Leap says your vertical leap is 5'. Not added five feet but five feet. The Basic Leaps says it is 3 feet so I think this replaces the basic leap. It then says you add five feet to your horizontal leap. This part is ambiguous. I think it is clear that five feet is added to the basic leap so 10 feet is 15 and 15 20. Since it gives a flat amount less than the high jump success roll this part obviously does not apply to the vertical part of the high jump.

This means does it apply to the distance of the long jump? My assumption is it could go either way but since the high jump is not affected then to be consistent the long jump should not be affected either.

PS: I am unsure how the stride is 45' (other feats and class abilities??)

I still maintain that to adjudicate the initial leap of cloud jump one determines the result of a normal long jump and then whatever that result is one triples it. This means that for a character with a 25' stride the most the long jump can be before the cloud jump is his stride of 25' no matter how high he rolls. In that instance then the quickened cloud jump would be 75' with the option to go 100' with two actions and 125' with three.

Essentially the rule about not jumping greater than the speed modifies the initial long jump calculation which is the result used to go to the cloud jump. This is why the example says the 20' check results in a 60' leap. Their example is following this rule.

One thing if I am reading it right is that Bards now no longer have the ability to fascinate someone with their performance.