Jockston's page

Caster killing archetype, prestige class, or feat chain for the fighter. It's been years and they still don't have an option that's worth a damn.

Aeron Solo wrote:

Linkified

It doesn't fit the theme of dead pool at all but the mechanics are really close. I like it

Jockston wrote:

My opinion would be that he is a sohei 8/ gunslinger pistolero 4. He is not "stealthy" in the least he jumps in combat screaming like a madman guns a lazing and uses katanas which a sohei can flurry with.

Actually, Sohei can't flurry with katanas without a fighter dip. They can only flurry with a weapon they have weapon training in, and Sohei only gets WT in bows, crossbows, monk weapons, polearms, spears, or thrown weapons. Heavy blades isn't on the list.

They can flurry with urumi or nodachis though.

That's right, just grab a temple sword and call it a katana.

My opinion would be that he is a sohei 8/ gunslinger pistolero 4. He is not "stealthy" in the least he jumps in combat screaming like a madman guns a lazing and uses katanas which a sohei can flurry with.

If my choices are between a class that is functional without any outside assistance and a class that requires me to write your character sheet for you, then yes I am going to recommend you use the first class. First is teaching a man to fish, second is giving a man a fish.

Though if you honestly believe a splatbook-less Fighter is extremely effective I'm pretty sure there's going to be no fixing that disconnect.

To me your arguments are stemming from a biased of the fighter, and are oblivious to the point being made.

You don't learn to drive on a nas car. You learn on an old beater. Your parents help you they don't just hand you keys and let you take your test.

The fighter is the best no book work class to learn from, assuming you don't want magic, and is a better fishing tool then a harpoon. The more crap a new player has to remember the slower combats are and the more help they will need. If that's your idea of teaching a man to fish then you missed the point of that truism.

He doesn't have Improved Iron Will because he's an inexperienced player who didn't know he should take it.

That's my point. Paladins and Rangers practically build themselves, Fighters and Barbarians have a much higher skill floor because of the wealth of options available in which many of those "options" are basically required to perform.

Are you playing elder scrolls? My first game consisted of me, a gm, and 4 other players who helped me and showed me good choices...

And as I said "CORE RULE BOOK ONLY FIGHTERS" don't have trap options as you put it. Skill cap is near zero, system mastery is near zero and effectiveness is extremely high.

Jockston wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

So I've given it a fair go and it looks really compelling if you simply go with the stamina rules on top of everything else you get something that looks pretty nice. I'll share one of the results when its done.

also, I'd never suggest a new player try a fighter.

Paladin or Ranger definitely.

This i don't understand...

A core fighter is effective at combat with no book keeping. No pet stat blocks, no lay on hands or spell lists .

Building a basic switch hitter fighter will out dps a ranger and barbarian, well pretty much every class until 10th and is more flexible in combat then any other martial.

People complain about skills but even they can be offset now at later levels. When I play with a new person I ask " do you want to cast spells, swing swords or both?"

Effective at damage, not effective at combat.

"Oops, I forgot/underestimated the need to boost my will save and now I'm under the control of the enemy wizard. Sorry guys!"

A Paladin is effective while taking zero options other than Power Attack; everything that you really need comes baked into the class. Fighters require a ton of meta knowledge to know what feats you have to pick up to be truly viable and not leave huge holes in your gameplay.

This is fallacy, they are not sitting at the table without advice or players helping them. You trying to mc my fighter friend well I hit the group with pro evil mass before the fight oh and he has improved iron will so his will is better then everyone else's in the group technically.

*edit* don't want people dwelling on corner cases, derailing the topic as usual

So"with the exception of the paladin."

So I've given it a fair go and it looks really compelling if you simply go with the stamina rules on top of everything else you get something that looks pretty nice. I'll share one of the results when its done.

also, I'd never suggest a new player try a fighter.

Paladin or Ranger definitely.

This i don't understand...

A core fighter is effective at combat with no book keeping. No pet stat blocks, no lay on hands or spell lists .

Building a basic switch hitter fighter will out dps a ranger and barbarian, well pretty much every class until 10th and is more flexible in combat then any other martial.

People complain about skills but even they can be offset now at later levels. When I play with a new person I ask " do you want to cast spells, swing swords or both?"

Caster= sorcerer. Straight forward spell caster almost no book keeping
Sword swinger= switch hitter fighter, no book keeping
Gish= paladin, smallest book keeping and generally powerful.

At any time they should be able to try a new class if they don't like it.

Role play doesn't require rolls, if they want to make rolls out of combat they shouldn't pick fighter.

Fighter is my favorite class by far, but then again I'm one of those "pour over 30,000 feats and make amazing tactical builds. I also don't GAF about dpr.

I've never once felt useless in a RP session on my fighters, I involve myself in conversations, and assist in rolls that are essential to group function.

When the party fighter pre occupies and locks down BBEG's without taking much if any hp damage while also whittling him to death, solidifies the role of that fighter as "powerful".

Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

This doesn't make any sense. How can a 12th level Monk have only 10AC?

Please, give me more information because this doesn't convince me paper mages aren't fragile, this only makes me think there is something you aren't telling me.

Your story does not check out.

That's what the player told me. Being that we were in the middle of a special, I didn't take the time to audit his character. Suffice to say that we ran it that way, that anything over 10 hit him, and I didn't manage to kill him. Imagine putting that on a wizard, who can have more defenses.

Ring of blink, lightning stance, and potion of mirrior image would make him near invulnerable against melee

Jockston wrote:

the thing is that instead of "you hit level 12 you can cast wish now" it would give black and white rules for a gm to decide how to allocate spells. Then it's not house ruling now it's an actual rule that you don't just know it.

If you go is like " pow you know it" then that's a house rule now not a core mechanic.

I think we all know that if something is a rule of the game then it's not a houserule.... That doesn't change the fact that it's just annoying then and forces the game to turn into "Instead of our normal plots we are searching for spells for our caster."

So your down time is spent acquiring spells instead of pulling the out of your arse? Doesn't seem like much of a down side to me.

Jockston wrote:

I did not say "get a scroll" it would affect all spell casters, including 1-6 hybrid casters.

Don't have a spell book? Then You need to unlock via ritual.

Oh, that's just annoying then and forces the game to turn into "Instead of our normal plots we are searching for spells for our caster."

the thing is that instead of "you hit level 12 you can cast wish now" it would give black and white rules for a gm to decide how to allocate spells. it's not house ruling now it's an actual rule that you don't just know the spell.

If your gm is like " pow you know it" then that's a house rule now not a core mechanic.

I'm on a phone and auto-correct is killin me

Jockston wrote:

If you want to fix the disparity then all that needs doing is making spell acquisition more difficult instead of automatic.

"From spell levels 5+ you can only achieve spells by hunting them down and adding them to your book. The fm decides how this is achieved."

Add that line, or something similar in the crb, the disparity is nullified. Now having access to any spell is not guaranteed.

*Cleric, sorcerer, oracle, arcanist, druid, summoner, and psychic start laughing*

I did not say "get a scroll" it would affect all spell casters, including 1-6 hybrid casters.

Don't have a spell book? Then You need to unlock via ritual.

If you want to fix the disparity then all that needs doing is making spell acquisition more difficult instead of automatic.

"From spell levels 5+ you can only achieve spells by hunting them down and adding them to your book. The fm decides how this is achieved."

Add that line, or something similar in the crb, the disparity is nullified. Now having access to any spell is not guaranteed.

Not that I know of.

Scanning the Feats list, I can only find these two, both with limited applicability:

Paired Opportunist, but you need a friend to take the feat too.

Counter Reflexes negates their AC bonus if they have Mobility (which is rare so this is almost certainly a "trap" feat)

I didn't even see those when I was looking. Thanks for your help. I was hopeing for a feat like +4 to hit on aoo's. Oh well

Wait don't fighters get to use advanced training to use teamwork feats as if your allies have the feats.

Does Paizo have any feats that increase the "to hit" of aoo (attacks of opportunity)?

I can't remember if it was only 3.5 that had it or if Paizo also has it.

Enemy casts shield, thread over. Not op in the least.

I like the idea of what you're doing, but it won't be quite as good as youay think. What I mean is that mobs will pass by after they miss once or twice. A better way to think of tanking in this game I'd controlling npcs, that's the best way to prevent damage in this game.

Feats like pin down, step up, and stand still will be a great way to tank beyond just high ac.

Just remember that evil does not mean psychotic murder hobo, it mean you either kill for enjoyment or convievance.

So a lawful evil person isn't necessarily a "bad person" but just that killing people who oppose you is justified in your mind.

Boba fett is one of the few non force users who can kill or capture force users with perfect success... According to the books. How he died to Han Solo just proves how badass solo is.

But for the op, any build would come together too late in the life cycle. I would suggest you focus on skills, and gun use with letting flavor and RP dictate your character. Don't worry about getting the mechanics.

I think my dwarven invulnerable rager 18/ unbreakable fighter is the toughest I've been able to make. 136 hp and dr 6 at 7th level with no magic effects. Average hp per level and a base 18 con score. It really was a fun character in PDA, but a half Orc with tenacious survivor in a home game is just about the toughest character in the game.

I love tenacious survivor. Powerhouse tank that can still bring the pain, I wish It was PFS legal.

It's not limited to PFS but PFS is notorious for mixing levels. So a low level Commander with an ability like Strike Hard! can give free attacks to higher level martials. I think everyone will agree that a level 1 Commander able to give a free attack per round to a level 4 Barbarian is playing way above their league (I calculated it and you outdamage a level 1 Barbarian 2 to 1 with such a Strike Hard! per round).

There's also and obviously the opposite issue where a high level Commander ends up with only low level teammates and is supposed to carry the party when his own combat abilities are extremely limited.

For those who play in mixed level parties, what do you think about that?

"Dad, what's a Squadmate?
- It's simple my son: if you have at least as much Intelligence bonus as party members then it's just another name for ally. And if you have less Intelligence bonus than party members, then a few teammates won't be full-on party members as they'll never benefit from your abilities.
- Dad, is the concept of Squadmate evil?
- Yes, my son. It's unnecessary complexity and a good reason to be sad when you're excluded from the squad."

squadmates => allies

Ready, Aim, Fire! is a high level (15) ability so maybe it's not much of an issue, but I still wonder what are the rationale and the balance behind this action.

For the rationale, well, you give 3 actions to your teammates... I can find a rationale behind Strike Hard! : Your tactics are so good that you force enemies to expose themselves to a free attack. But Ready, Aim, Fire! grants 3 actions, none of them being much circumstantial. How can a character act twice more each round without the help of magic? What are they doing when they are not being commanded? Twiddling their thumbs?

Now, let's look at the balance behind Ready, Aim, Fire! Let's consider a 5-man party (more common than a 4-man one in my opinion) with 2 casters and 2 martials who happen to have a Cantrip with just Trained proficiency and an ok casting stat (18 which is basic at level 15). Their total damage (with EA) is equivalent to a Greatsword Fighter making 2 attacks. And your MAP hasn't moved so you can also attack yourself. Also, it's at range when the Greatsword Fighter needs to get to melee range. And don't speak about the reaction cost as casters rarely need theirs and you can give 2 Reactions to your allies at that level with Drilled Reflexes (and 4 at 18).

Also, my example is very far from optimized, just basic. You can ask the martials to get to Expert/Master proficiency. You can have a 6-man party. You can have an Eidolon or/and an Arboreal Sappling (or other characters can have an Arboreal Sappling or an Eidolon, hello Summoner and their double cantrip). You can have a Gunslinger in the party. You can even add Amp Cantrips (nothing in the ability forbids it).

I mean, what the hell? An ability that gives 2-3 actions to all party members, when did you think it'd be balanced, Paizo?
Also, what's supposed to be the fun behind it? The whole party has to move to your strategy and if anyone plays a Barbarian, well, sorry guy, you're screwed. For me, the Commander should improve what your party is doing, not force everyone to move to the same strategy because there are so many benefits in doing so that it completely counterbalances the lack of versatility.

I must admit I'm puzzled by the interaction between Plant Banner and Banner tactics: Why do you lose the ability to use these tactics when your Banner is planted? I've tried to see a pattern in there but haven't found any understandable one.

I would have far prefered the Banner trait to only work in your Banner Aura, so you could use Plant Banner and Banner tactics but just need to be close to your Banner while doing so. Losing a portion of your abilities just because doesn't seem right.

Edit: Actually, there's the same issue with Commander's Steed. That's now 2 feats that are incompatible with a bunch of Tactics and feats. I find that very problematic, especially because you don't realize at first that there's a negative interaction as it doesn't make any sense.

Sorry Paizo for such a feedback. I was quite thrilled by the Commander (and worried by the Guardian) and finally I'm disappointed by the Commander (and the Guardian is awesome).

Current Commander is just a 2-trick poney who gives his actions to allies. That's boring, it doesn't look like a Commander to me.

I'd have prefered the Commander to have active abilities. After all, you are suppose to devise tactics to win the battle, not just telling you ally: You attack!

For example:

STRIKE HARD! [two-actions]
BANNER COMMANDER TACTIC
You command allies to attack when the enemies are beffudled by your tactics. Every enemy in your Banner aura makes a Will Save against your class DC.

Failure The opponent leaves an opening for your allies' attacks. Choose one of your Quadmates that can Strike the enemy as a Reaction. Each Quadmate can only make one Strike thanks to Strike Hard!
Critical Failure As failure, but with a +2 circumstance bonus to the attack roll.

Or:

DOUBLE TEAM [two-actions]
COMMANDER TACTIC
Your team works together to set an enemy up for a vicious attack. Roll a Warfare Lore check and signal one squadmate affected by your commander’s banner who has an opponent within their reach. That ally can Shove or Reposition an opponent as a free action using your Warfare Lore result to resolve the action. If their maneuver is successful and the target ends their movement flanked by you or another squadmate, you or the second squadmate can attempt a melee Strike against that target as a reaction.

Or:

FORM UP! [one-action]
COMMANDER TACTIC
You signal your team to move into position together. Signal all squadmates affected by your commander’s banner; each can immediately Stride as a reaction, though each must end their movement inside your banner’s aura. Every enemy that uses a reaction triggered by your allies' movement must succeed at a Will save against your class DC or see their Reaction disrupted (but still used).

Or:

PINCER ATTACK [one-action]
COMMANDER TACTIC
You signal an aggressive formation designed to exploit enemies’ vulnerabilities. Signal all squadmates affected by your commander’s banner; each can Step as a free action. If any of your allies end this movement flanking an opponent, that opponent is Flat-Footed to you and all your Squadmates until the beginning of your next round and must succeed at a Reflex save against your class DC or fall prone.

These are just examples, but the goal would be:
- Make all tactics circumstantial. Tactics should be circumstantial. Using the same tactic (Strike Hard!) every round is preposterous. The Commander should adapt to the situation.
- Use your Class DC and Warfare Lore skill a lot. So you know why you have high Intelligence.
- Give more tactics to the Commander (obviously as they are circumstantial) so the class feels more interesting (if I want an easy to use class, I don't choose the Commander).
- Give more freedom on how to play the Commander. As of now, the best routine for a Commander is Strike + Strike Hard! It means that you either use a ranged weapon or a mount. With circumstantial tactics, the number of actions used on your tactics will vary and you won't end up with always the same routine.

Side notes:
- I think it'd be great to have other skills used for some tactics, like Intimidation, Deception, Arcana, whatever, encouraging the Commander to develop a unique set of tactics, skill proficiencies and stats array. I'd love to have some Commanders using Arcana for magic based tactics, while other Commanders will have high Charisma for demoralizing/deceptive tactics when other Commanders will have high Str/Dex and attack more often by themselves.

Hello everyone,

After years of blasting with my casters, I've decided to finally finish my guide to blasting (I hope it'll push Gortle to do the same for his unfinished guides!).

I hope it will convey all the pleasure I have blasting with my casters!

Don't hesitate to tell me if you feel I have forgotten something or if you want to clarify some points.

I just realized that the description of Staves only indicates the need to hold the Staff when casting spells. Some Staves also give bonuses. Sometimes it's clearly indicated that you need to wield the Staff to benefit from it (like for the Staff of Providence) and sometimes it's not (like for the Staff of Healing). Which makes me wonder if these bonuses could be gained without actually wielding the Staff...

Due to a conversation about walls, I came to look closely at Wall of Stone specifically. And this spell is a nightmare to adjudicate as a GM: there are tons of unclear rules around it and depending on how you rule them you can make the spell overpowered or close to unplayable.

Wall of Stone: You shape a wall of solid stone. You create a 1-inch-thick wall of stone up to 120 feet long, and 20 feet high. You can shape the wall's path, placing each 5 feet of the wall on the border between squares. The wall doesn't need to stand vertically, so you can use it to form a bridge or set of stairs, for example. You must conjure the wall in an unbroken open space so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost.

Each 10-foot-by-10-foot section of the wall has AC 10, Hardness 14, and 50 Hit Points, and it's immune to critical hits and precision damage. A destroyed section of the wall can be moved through, but the rubble created from it is difficult terrain.

Walls: Spells that create walls list the depth, length, and height of the wall, also specifying how it can be positioned. Some walls can be shaped; you can manipulate the wall into a form other than a straight line, choosing its contiguous path square by square. The path of a shaped wall can’t enter the same space more than once, but it can double back so one section is adjacent to another section of the wall.

Among the things needing adjudication:
- What is an object? On paper, even a small rock is an object. Being nitpicky about this point can lead to the spell being nearly unusable.
- What is passing "through" a creature? You obviously can't pass through their space but from the space and size rules: Sometimes part of a creature extends beyond its space, such as if a giant octopus is grabbing you with its tentacles. For example a guard with a Longspear is definitely extending beyond it's space. But how do you rule what creature is extending beyond its space and what creature isn't?
- Can the ceiling "break" the space if it's less than 20-foot high?
- How do you handle this part of the Walls rule: The path of a shaped wall can’t enter the same space more than once. Considering that Wall of Stone is supposed to be positioned on the border between squares, it's hard to determine what the "same space" refers to. Also, can you make a prison with the wall?
- What if the ground is not flat? I see so many possible answers to this question, from the wall that follows the relief to the one that extends 20-foot high from the lowest point to the one that ends up partly mid-air to the GM who forbids such casting...

A GM who answers no to all these questions will make the spell nearly unusable. On the other side, a GM who answers yes to all these questions will make the spell completely broken: For example, you could make 2 rings of wall around any large size or smaller creature forcing it to break through 2 layers of wall to escape. So you basically eliminate from the fight any creature that can't cast Dimension Door 5 without even a save: Definitely broken.

The Subtle trait is the new black since the remaster. But I want to be sure I'm reading it well.

Subtle says: "A spell with the subtle trait can be cast without incantations and doesn’t have obvious manifestations."

While spells says: "Casting a spell requires the caster to make gestures
and utter incantations" and "Spellcasting creates obvious sensory manifestations, such as bright lights, crackling sounds, and sharp smells from the gathering magic. Nearly all spells manifest a spell signature—a colorful, glowing ring of magical runes that appears in midair, typically around your hands, though what kind of spellcaster you are can affect this—academic wizards typically have neat and ordered spell signatures, while a druid’s might be more organic and a cleric’s might be inspired by their deity"

So, there's obviously no question about incantations and manifestations. But what about gestures and spell signature? From strict RAW, they are not removed by the Subtle trait but they still make it rather obvious that you're casting a spell. Definitely less obvious than without the trait, as you no more make sound, smell or light, but still obvious enough to prevent casting in front of anyone. Also, Charm has kept the wording saying the target thinks your spell was harmless.

So it seems the Subtle trait doesn't remove the need for Stealth or Deception if you want to cast such a spell when there are creatures/persons around.

How would you handle it?

So, it seems that the remaster clarifies that your Wounded value is added to your Dying value anytime your Dying value increases. It looks like the game will be much more deadly...

I also wonder what will change in how players will use healing, as healing a downed ally will now be a death sentence in a lot of situations.

This one is a candidate for errata: if you grab an Eidolon through Summoner Dedication you don't benefit from the Eidolon Initial Ability. So in the case of the Construct Eidolon, it means that your Eidolon is a full blown Construct and as such gets all the Construct Immunities. Much better than if you actually had the Eidolon Initial Ability.

Same goes for the Undead Eidolon which ends up being a full blown Undead.

I've worked for 10 years in the video game industry and I can assure you of one thing: I've never seen a single game designer that was considering power creep positively. For sure, there are some games around there with power creep as a core design component but they are the exceptions not the rule. For most games, power creep is an undesired by-product of game design. Still, it's quite ubiquitous.
So I open this conversation on power creep, using our preferred hobby as gaming material.

I'll start this conversation with an example: the Magus, as I think it's a perfect illustration of the release cycle of new content.
When the Magus has been released, the overall point of view on the class was that it was way underpowered. Fragile, clunky, with an extremely constrained action economy but no real asset. I've been among the first ones (if not the first one on these boards) to raise concerns about what you could do by combining Spellstrike, True Strike and Fire Ray (as it was before the Psychic was a thing). I remember clearly some criticism I experienced at that time: Using Spellstrike with a Focus Spell grabbed through a Dedication is obvious powergamer shenanigans, no one plays their Magus like that. Roughly a year after, the default expectation for the Magus is to grab a Focus Spell through Dedication and the community point of view on the class has strongly shifted, with at least the Starlit Span being considered close to broken and the melee Magus being much closer to the average power level.

The Magus is the perfect embodiment of the release cycle of new content. When new content is released, players start to get used to it. They don't know the builds and tactics so chances are high that they will play it "badly" from a tactical point of view. Soon, powergamers start to release their guides and builds and tactics. These builds and tactics spread across the community and at some point they become the default way of playing. And it's at that point that you can really assess the true power level of the released content.
Before that, it's impossible. Especially in a game like PF2 with so many feats, spells and magic items, determining all the potential combos right off the bat is beyond human reach. So no one can really tell when new content is released if it's balanced or not. In general, the perceived power level of a new class at release is lower than its actual power level (there are so many potential builds, powergamers have a lot of imagination) but it's not set in stone and sometimes no one finds anything fancy to do with a class and the basic builds and tactics are also the most optimized ones.

From APG to Dark Archive, Paizo strategy was to aim low. With APG, they aimed far too low. But after APG and before Thaumaturge, I can say that Paizo was spot on. The new classes are roughly at the same power level than Core Rulebook's, I'd even say that they are more balanced as none is as strong as the best CRB classes and none is as bad as the worst. Still, I don't remember of a single of these classes (before the Thaumaturge) that got positive feedback from the playtest nor at release. Because many of them were then perceived as much worse than they are now, especially the Magus even if I start to see much more love for the Summoner.

Unfortunately, this strategy generates negative feedback. New content always feels weak and being excited about new content is important both for players and game designers. So a lot of game designers follow their players' feedback and release content that feels balanced at release...

With the Thaumaturge, Paizo adopted a brand new class design (and I strongly link that to Mark leaving the design team but I may be wrong). The change has been clearly perceived: Players are now praising Paizo's ability at balancing classes. Do you read between the lines as much as I do?
I must admit I don't like this new class design and I've never been interested in the Thaumaturge nor the Kineticist, so I'm late to the party. But I was curious, and from a conversation I decided to "break" the game with the Thaumaturge. Well, it took me a couple of hours to find a build that significantly outdamages a Greatsword Fighter at level 10+ (yes, I'll give you my build, and yes, once again, there is a small shenanigan).

I already see some people disagreeing. It's fine, it's certainly a bit early to jump to conclusions. Still, I have strong concerns about the future of our hobby. And as a wise man used to say: The signs are there and Groetus is grinning.

To be continued in a couple of years.

Well, it's certainly too late, but I'd have loved to see a separation between action (the action points you have during your round) and action (the fact that your character does something). For example, a free action is an action that doesn't cost an action.

Having 2 notions so central to the system with the exact same name generates a lot of interpretation issues. It's also very confusing for beginners.

GM: You are at a table in a tavern, there are a bunch of adventurers around you who are waiting for your future patron. You can introduce yourself.
Druid: I'm a powerful druid, I can transform into a mouse to scratch my enemies' eyes.
Champion: I'm a mighty Champion of Shelyn and I will protect you with my shield and armor.
Rogue: Don't hesitate to stay behind me, mighty champion, as you clearly lack the armor. As for me, I'm an expert of all things... well, I'm expert at nothing, but it'll come sooner than later.
Two-Weapon Fighter: Has anyone seen a ring? A beautiful precious ring, I really need it otherwise my fighting style is just garbage.
Dwarven Barbarian: I'm a Giant Barbarian, the greatest of all.
Rogue: The smallest of all...
Sorcerer: I'm an elemental sorcerer, I destroy my enemies with fire, lightning and ice.
Druid: Wonderful, what's your signature spell? Fireball, Lightning Bolt?
Sorcerer: Heal...

I sometimes wonder: What's the point of level 1? Why level 1 is the basic expectation when it's one of the most boring level to play once you know the game? Why level 1 is not an optional rule, the equivalent of level 0, aimed at introducing the game to new players? Why a lot of APs and adventures start at level 1? Wouldn't it be better to have the first book of APs being an introductory adventure and the actual campaign starting at book 2 so experienced players can skip the lowest levels?

Low levels are the ones we play the most. But as soon as one knows the game (and you don't need tons of adventures for that) they become the less interesting to play. And I actually know a lot of people (myself included) who start campaigns at level 2, 3 or 5 so PCs can be fully fleshed out characters and not half baked ones.
I feel that level 1 is made the basic expectation from the way the book is written, the APs are released and all of that. But if the game was considering level 5 as a valid starting level and made sure APs and such could start from such a level without any hindrance for the players I'm pretty sure it would become as popular as Free Archetype is. Don't you think?

I'm puzzled by the Illusion tag on the Mistform Elixir. First, it's no magical item, which is in contradiction with the tag: "Effects and magic items with this trait are associated with the illusion school of magic, typically involving false sensory stimuli."
Similarly when speaking about magical schools: "All spells, all magic items, and most other magical effects fall into one of the eight schools of magic. These schools broadly define what the magic is capable of. Every spell has the trait corresponding to its school. Some spellcasters, like specialist wizards, have particular acumen with a certain school of magic."

So it's a school of magic, what does it do on an Elixir? On top of it, the description of Mistform Elixir doesn't seem "illusory": it's an actual mist that raise from your skin.

Is it an error?

I was looking at poison damage recently and I realized it's a resource that is not available in these boards. So I made this Graphs.

For comparison, I've put a Greatsword Fighter attack, Greatsword Champion attack and Electric Arc (on a single target). All against High AC and average saves.

And the "points" are the best poisons you can find at these levels. I've only counted one round of damage (so initial save and second save at the end of the enemy round) against average Fortitude. I've considered the poisons' save DCs but most DCs are already as high as the Alchemist DC so a Toxicologist would get the same damage nearly every time.

Hope this helps.

I may be in the minority here but I really like the concept behind the Player Core line of books: Taking a bunch of classes and player options from multiple books, correct/rebalance/expand them and deliver them in a single book.

First, it would be a line of books for players. Because besides the Core Rulebook and the APG, there's not much books to buy if you only intend to play. Sure, you can buy Guns and Gears if you are interested in the Inventor or Dark Archive if you want to play a Thaumaturge, but these books are not really aimed at players and may even contain spoilers (if your GM wants to play the Dark Archive case files for example).
Also, it means that new classes won't be left alone without further improvements. As of now, I don't know if there will ever be new content for the Inventor. As it's not part of the main line of books chances are high that Paizo won't deliver anything regarding it. But if it becomes part of the "core books" I may expect some new options in future books.
And with their inclusion in a core book, these classes will be rebalanced and corrected. Even if current balance of the game is extremely good, there are still outliers, options that don't work as intended or that would need much more space to be fully fleshed out (Synthesist Summoner for example).

That's all, I just wanted to give my opinion about the Player Core books coming soon.

Burn It! increases the damage of "alchemical items that deal fire damage". I wonder how you think Burn It! and fire Energy Mutagen should interact. I feel that a strict RAW reading would deny the interaction. But at the same time a more casual reading would definitely acknowledge that the Mutagen deals fire damage (in the form of a buff or a breath).

What do you think?

I've played a bit my Alchemists after Treasure Vault (a mid level Dexterity-based generalist with Chirurgeon Research Field and a low level Strength-based Mutagenist) and I feel I can now speak about the impact of Treasure Vault on the Alchemist as it has been, in my opinion, very important. I'll cover the classic builds from worse to best.

Toxicologist (red)

You always have a loser, and Treasure Vault just killed the Toxicologist. I've tried to see what could be done with Poison Concentrator and the Toxicologist's first and thirteenth level abilities and the only bonus I managed to find before level 17 and outside some crazy shenanigans using Uncommon/Rare options from APs is a +1 to poison DC at level 9. With the release of so many poisons, this Research Field is now mostly useless. If you want to play a Toxicologist, just take another Research Field.

Chirurgeon (yellow)

Well, there's a big change with Treasure Vault: Chirurgeon is now a thing. If you want to play a healing focused Alchemist, then it's possible: Sip a Choker-Arm Mutagen for reach and deliver a lot more healing elixirs than in the past. As Choker-Arm Mutagen kills your weapon ability, you need to find elsewhere your offensive potential: Wizard/Witch Dedication for spells or Summoner Dedication for the Eidolon (as you are nearly the only build able to get anything out of it). Unfortunately, your healing ability really starts at level 5 while healing is so strong at low level. Also, you won't feel that much of an Alchemist as half of the time you'll be casting Electric Arc on enemies. It's not a good build, but it's a playable one.

Generalist (green)

Before Treasure Vault, the generalist was in my opinion the best Alchemist build. With Treasure Vault, it has changed as specialization now pays. Still, the generalist is a solid choice. For Research Field, I feel that Chirurgeon is the best one if you intend to increase Crafting. Otherwise, you should take Mutagenist.

Bomber (green/blue)

I think everyone knows what is the biggest change for the Bomber: The Skunk Bomb. The single best item from Treasure Vault but also the most imbalancing as the Bomber has been completely rewritten because of it. The main drawback of the Bomber was that Bombs were dropping in efficiency past level 11, ending at the same level than a martial secondary attack at level 20. With the Skunk Bomb (as a Perpetual Infusion), the Bomber switches to a debuffer at high level and stays perfectly relevant.
Still, there are 2 pain points with the Bomber. The first one are the first 6 levels. These levels are hard for most Alchemists due to the lack of reagents, but bombing is especially costly. And it's also demanding in terms of feats preventing you to take Dedications like Wizard/Witch/Beastmaster to give you at will abilities during these tough levels. The second pain point is poison immunity at high level. It will prevent both your poisons and Skunk Bombs to work, greatly reducing your efficiency. These 2 issues can be alleviated with Free Archetype, allowing you to get more of a Bomber/generalist build and as such putting the Bomber among the best Alchemist builds.
As a side note, I only speak about the Skunk Bomb for the Bomber as one issue this Bomb has is to affect allies, debuffing them as much as enemies. If you find a way to immune your fellow party members to your Skunk Bombs, they become available to all Research Fields with Perpetual Breadth.

Mutagenist (blue)

And here's the great winner, mostly because of a single item: The Collar of the Shifting Spider. The Collar solves a lot of pain points for the Mutagenist: Even when surprised, you don't need any action to be under your Mutagen. It opens up all the weapon builds prior to level 11 (as Bestial Mutagen is really weak during the single digit levels). And it also opens up the ability to buff your party members with Mutagens, something that was much much harder before its release.
The Energy Mutagen is the second item I find important. First, you can imbibe a few of them every morning for Mutagenic Resurgence, so you can now exploit weaknesses or protect yourself against a specific energy type. Also, it's much easier to give it to teammates as its drawbacks are extremely manageable and its bonuses are super nice for melee martials. It should become a classic.
There are other Mutagens I find extremely solid choices, especially the Titanic Fury Mutagen that combines a great reach with a very nice offensive boost.
And the Weapon Siphon also helps the Mutagenist a lot at low level. During its first levels, mine was able to compete with other martials in terms of damage output thanks to the combination of Weapon Siphon, Poison and the occasional Energy Mutagen.
Overall, the Mutagenist is really the nicest Alchemist build to play: As a Strength-based martial it is quite efficient at low level. It also has a low reagent consumption and even when out of reagents it keeps most of its efficiency. And at high level if you switch to Bestial Mutagen you have both of your hands free so you can deliver Elixirs in the middle of the fight.

Hello everyone,

I've read numerous complaints about casters in PF2 and even if I really love to play them I must admit I can't completely dismiss the complaints.
As such, I've written my vision of what spellcasting in PF2 should be. I've tried to stay as close as possible to the actual rules, as I think it'll be easier to use as a result.

I'll see if I can test it on the next adventure I'll GM.
In the meantime, don't hesitate to make your comments.

Unchained spellcasting for PF2

I was reading Quick Alchemy and Advanced Alchemy, and I realized that Quick Alchemy limits the items you create to Consumables, when Advanced Alchemy doesn't. So, per strict RAW, it seems that you can create Alchemical Crossbows and other permanent Alchemical Items for the day.
What have I missed?

Hi everyone,

The more I read Stand Still and the less I'm sure about which case(s) generates a disruption:
"Stand Still
Feat 4
Monk
Source Core Rulebook pg. 160 4.0
Trigger A creature within your reach uses a move action or leaves a square during a move action it’s using.
You strike out when your foe tries to flee. Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature. If the attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a move action, you disrupt that action."

Because it is triggered by move actions in both cases. Does "the trigger was a move action" separates both triggers or is it a useless reminder? I'm puzzled.

As of now, all APs are either level 1-20, 1-11 or 11-20.
I don't like much the very high levels (15+), I find them complicated and even if PF2 is quite a good system you see more differences in character power levels at these levels.
I also don't like much the very first levels. Mostly because you don't have many options to make your character really stand out.

I wonder why there are no level 6-15 APs? I really find these are the most interesting levels, mechanically. Don't you?

I was just putting a few numbers on an Excel sheet and realized it could be useful to everyone.
So here's a compilation of all the ways to increase your (passive) Reach.

I've included the sneak peeks from Treasure Vault.
I obviously have forgotten some ways to increase it, so don't hesitate to tell me and I'll add them.

I can't find anything allowing a Grabbed creature to Strike at whatever is grabbing it. Have I missed it or is it impossible per RAW to Strike at the creature which is grabbing you if it's out of your reach?

With the coming up release (and considering that no change will happen now), I see the Chirurgeon becoming maybe the best high level healer in the game. Here's how it competes with... well, the competition (mostly the Cleric).

Out of combat healing.
This one is easy. With Medicine going up as fast as Crafting and Perpetual Infusions giving you extra hit points per ten minutes at high level, the Chirurgeon is now the master of out of combat healing (past the very first levels where Rogues and Investigators can grab Continual Recovery earlier).

In combat healing.
2 Elixirs of Life have nearly the same healing output than a 2-action Heal of the highest spell level or second highest spell level (because of the weird progression of Elixirs of Life). But the Alchemist can produce so many Elixirs of Life that it outlives the Cleric easily. The issue with this form of healing has always been Action economy. With a Valet Familiar and a Mature Mount, you could move, draw 2 Elixirs of Life and administer them. But it was a bit clunky as you had to get very close to enemies (and risk Attacks of Opportunity) and because you had to move every time you wanted to heal a new PC.
Now, with the Choker-Arm Mutagen, you can get a bigger reach (10ft. early, 15+ at level 11+). You should have much more freedom in your positioning thanks to it. Still, because of the very weird mount rules, it's better to use a Medium Mount (and a Small Alchemist) than a Large one.
At very high level (13+) or if you decide to Combine Elixirs, the Alchemist has a bigger emergency healing output than the Cleric. But it greatly affects its sustainability so you can't use it too often.
Also, with Soothing Tonic and Numbing Tonic, you can give a nice regeneration to your allies. Unlike the Cleric you are not forced to wait for damage to happen to start healing.
Unfortunately, the Alchemist doesn't have neither the range of the Cleric (even if it gets close at level 17) nor its AoE healing.
Overall, I feel that the Alchemist is able to maintain a higher healing output for longer but with a few situations where it isn't ideal.

Status Removal.
Contagion Metabolizers allow you to easily get rid of Poison and Diseases (especially when you get them through Perpetual Infusions (11+) as you'll be able to do it for free every hour then).
Merciful Elixirs at 10 can counteract Fear and Paralyzed (once again, you can combine it with Perpetual Infusions for at will tries, even if you aim for a nat 20 on the counteract check). Greater Merciful Elixir add Blinded, Deafened, Sickened and Slowed.
The Alchemist can remove the Fatigued Condition for 30 minutes per day.
And Elixirs like Focus Cathartic and Sinew-Shock Serum can help also, even if their lack of efficiency limits greatly how much you can get out of them.
The Cleric can remove a broad range of effects, but for most of them you'll need to prepare it beforehand or wait for a long rest. Channeled Succor (8+) helps with 4 Conditions but costs your Font slots, so you are still quite limited in its use.
Overall, even if the Cleric can remove as many Conditions as the Alchemist, the need to prepare the spells beforehand strongly limits its efficiency when the Alchemist can use Quick Alchemy a few times per day to help with unexpected Conditions. Still, the Cleric can Remove Curse and Stone to Flesh, 2 very important conditions.

Pre buff.
When it comes to healing, there are a few prebuff options. The Cleric can cast Vital Beacon but it's far from awesome, the level 11+ Alchemist can put everyone under Soothing Tonic every 10 minutes which is very nice to use before opening a door.

Disclaimer: I certainly have missed a few things here and there, especially because I base this post on Nonat1s video. Don't hesitate to tell me then.

Conclusion: With the new items coming soon, it's now hard to dismiss the Chirurgeon as a healer. The very first levels are a bit hard (unfortunately as they are the ones asking for the most healing) but once at level 5 the Chirurgeon can be a strong primary healer, I even find it slightly better than the Cleric in pure healing.

I just saw the last WOTC plans for our comrades on the other side of the d20 and one of their plans is to develop AI-GMs.

It got me wondering a few things:
Can it actually be a thing? A lot of adventures are quite streamlined and even if there's not tons of content to absorb (which is what AIs do the best) I'm wondering if an AI can actually be good enough to provide at will content to players when there's a dearth of game running. Maybe not for today, but for tomorrow...

How would you accept AI-GMs? Even considering that they won't be as good as human GMs (and I'm sorry to say that but I'm pretty sure an AI can be better than some human GMs), would you accept to play under AI-GMing? Will the lack of human interaction with the GM reduce the pleasure or will it be fine as long as you get along with the players?

Complementary GMing. That's one thing AIs do the best: helping us. A big part of our hobby can be fully automatized. Combats, for example, especially now that a lot of us are moving to VTTs. Just use an AI for combats and other simple scenes and, as a GM, you can use your time and energy on what's important (story, roleplay, character development). Is it something that would appeal to you?

These days, I'm mostly playing my Psychic and my caster Summoner and they happen to be around the same levels. And I just realized that they are actually super close: both of them are using Electric Arc as their bread and butter spell, with a small spell list on the side to cover the exceptional cases. They fill the same role inside the party: ranged damage dealer + emergency healer + a bit of utility.

Without even thinking about it, the comparison became quite obvious. And I must admit it didn't end well for the Psychic: My Summoner is significantly more efficient. Both are Humans, with a similar level of optimization, so it doesn't come from external factors. I can now state with quite a level of certainty that the Psychic class is weaker than the Summoner class.

To make a thorough comparison:
- Damage: Both are doing similar damage when the Psychic has his Psyche Unleashed. But you can't have your Psyche Unleashed all the time. Summoner wins.
- Toughness: The Summoner is definitely in a better spot here. Much bigger hit point pool, better saves and some excellent defensive abilities available. Summoner wins.
- Spell power: At first glance, it should be the Psychic biggest advantage: Slightly bigger spell list, more Focus Spells and Points, Legendary proficiency. The issue is that you regularly end up Stupefied, which is just killing your efficiency every time a fight lasts 4 rounds (which is far from uncommon, especially for tough fights). Summoner wins because of its ability to last.
- Versatility: The Summoner is massive in versatility. Skill wise, the Eidolon helps a lot. Evolution Surge covers a lot of situations. Between the Eidolon average AC and your high hit point pool you can also double down as an off tank. This is by far the best asset of the Summoner over the Psychic. Summoner wins.
- Feats: The Psychic feats are not really good, the Summoner has much better feats but many of them can be considered tax feats (Tandem Move...). Psychic wins as long as it chooses a nice Dedication to siphon its feats on.

I don't really find anything the Psychic is better at. I find the Summoner class to be just strictly better than the Psychic class. It's not miles ahead, but still a significant difference.
I played a Psychic just to test the class as I was having hard time determining what level of power it had compared to the other casters. I can now state that it's not really a strong class. On the other hand, I have been positively surprised by my Summoner, this is a very solid class, definitely a high tier one.

I was flipping through AoN looking at the new Ancestries available, and the Kashrishi immediately caught my attention for the bunch of unusual features they have.
But then, I looked at some of their Ancestry feats and I realized we have a brand new competitive Ancestry!

I've found 2 absolutely incredible feats:
- The Horn (with a capital H): 1d8 Finesse unarmed attack. A staple for Strength-based Swashbucklers and Investigators, even Ruffians and Flowing Wave/Shadow Grasp/etc... Monks love it. This is the strongest unarmed attack in the game outside class abilities, and the only one you can use without entering a Stance or Rage. Massive!
- Empathic Calm: The ability to cast Calm Emotions as an Innate spell... heightened up to your level!!! First time I find an auto heightening Innate spell (but I may have missed one). And Calm Emotions is definitely a strong spell.

And then a few good ones:
- Community Knowledge is a +2 status bonus to a skill check every hour at the cost of a reaction.
- Crystal Luminescence is an enormous light. Nothing incredible per se but still super nice.
- Emotional Partition gives is Resolve but only against Emotion effects. It's still quite nice if your class is bad at will saves.

Overall, the Ancestry is not out of bounds, especially because it's a Constitution+Free boost one. But it's the first time since CRB that I find a mechanically attractive Ancestry.
Continue with that, Paizo. All Ancestries should be that strong, most of them deserve more love.

Edit: I've looked at the other Ancestries, and they are not as strong as the Kashrishis. The only nice thing I've found is the Vanara Battle Clarity which is equivalent to Deny Advantage, but it's a level 13 feat so it starts to be high level. The Vishkanya Poison support is nice but can't be easily used before level 9 and Swift Application which means delaying Moderate Poison Application up to level 13. So it's again a high level ability.

Hi everyone,

I was reading Spectral Hand and I find it's massively unclear regarding damage.
"You create a semicorporeal hand out of your essence that delivers touch spells for you. Whenever you Cast a Spell with a range of touch, you can have the hand crawl to a target within range along the ground, touch it, and then crawl back to you. When making a melee spell attack with the hand, you use your normal bonuses. The hand can move as far as it needs to within range. The hand has your AC and saves, but any damage to the hand destroys it and causes you to take 1d6 damage."

First, what's the hand? A lot of abilities only target creatures (Strike...). But it has an AC suggesting it can be attacked with weapons (which seems logical).
Also, can the hand be damaged through positive or negative damage (is it alive, undead, or an object)?

Overall, how can the hand be destroyed?

Hi everyone,

I see that the Aldori Dueling Sword on Archive of Nethys has lost the Finesse trait. AoN indicates the sword comes from Kingmaker, so I was wondering if it is a hidden errata.

Hi everyone,

I recently started to play my Summoner quite extensively. It is still low level but I already got a blast playing it. The class is fulfilling my need for complexity while packing quite some punch, everything I love.
But I feel the way I play it is very different from both the discussions I've read here, the builds I've seen posted and the only guide I've found about the Summoner.

I wanted to write a long post about what I call the "Caster Summoner", but as I can't modify posts on these boards after an hour I thought it'd be better to format it like a guide and maybe update it along my experience and your comments.
Here it is: Guide to the Caster Summoner

Don't hesitate to tell me what you think about it.

Reading Outwit Edge, I realized the sentence about Deception, Intimidation and Stealth bonus is badly spelled out: "You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Deception checks, Intimidation checks, Stealth checks, and any checks to Recall Knowledge about the prey"

It looks like you get the bonus against anyone, not just your prey. It's certainly not RAI, but it's RAW to me.

What do you think?

The recent release of the Psychic has been the biggest earthquake in PF2 class balance. Let me give you my analysis of all the changes.

The big winner: Magus.

The melee Magus was a solid pick before the Psychic, but it is also a very hard class to play due to its complex action economy. With the release of the Psychic and because of Imaginary Weapon, it becomes a beast. Still hard to play so I don't expect it to invade all our games but when players will get used to it I expect it to become a staple.
The Starlit Span Magus on the other hand was already causing balance issues before the Psychic. With the Psychic release, it outdamages Giant Barbarians and Greatsword Fighters hands down. I expect it to soon cause problems at most tables. Mainly, it changes the game dynamic with ranged characters becoming the main damage dealers and melee ones being tanks before damage dealers. The pill will be hard to swallow for Fighters and Barbarians.
The Eldritch Archer is also stronger. But as it lacks the wording the Magus has about spell range it will bear very different results if the GM allows Imaginary Weapon to work at range or not.

The unfortunate losers: other archers.

Archers have never been especially strong. But with the new Starlit Span Magus, they are buried deep.
Melee damage dealers with nothing on the side, like Fighter and Barbarian, have also lost a bit of ground as they are no more the best martial damage dealers in the game.

The small winners: Casters with available focus points.

The second biggest change the Psychic brings is Amp Guidance. Now, every Charisma or Intelligence-based caster can grab Bard level of buffing with a single level 2 feat as long as they don't need their Focus Points (and their reaction). Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics and Summoners are the clear winners there. On top of it, multiple casters can take Amp Guidance without interfering with each other.

The big loser: Bard.

The Bard main schtick, buffing, is now available easily to everyone. It doesn't make the Bard worse, it just removes its unicity as best buffer/debuffer of the game. An Occult Sorcerer can now do just as good as a Bard. The class is still strong and stays very relevant, it's just no more the "bestest class". In my opinion, this is the best change in balance as it puts the Bard on par with other casters. I expect the Cleric to become the new Bard (I don't like Cleric much, especially at high level, but I know how it is loved by players already and considering how it's now easy to make a great buffer out of it I expect even more Cleric love).

As a conclusion, I'll say that Psychics were supposed to be rare in Golarion. But the Dedication is so strong I expect it to become common around tables with sometimes multiple Psychics at the same table. I also expect a lot of issues around the Starlit Span Magus. I plan on limiting Spellstrike to spells acquired through Magus Spellcasting, it should be a good deterrent to powergamers.
Don't hesitate to give your comments.

Hi everyone,

The Aid action is subject to a lot of GM adjudication and as such table variation. As I play a lot of PFS, I ended up not using it at all outside situations where the rules enforce it (Inspire Competence and One For All). But it shouldn't be the case.
So, I wanted to gather the wisdom of the crowd on when you would allow to Aid and when you wouldn't. I focus on combat as it's the moment when you don't want to mess up with your actions and plan accordingly.

Would you allow to:

1) Aid a melee attack roll with a melee attack roll?
2) Aid a ranged attack roll with a melee attack roll?
3) Aid an attack roll with a ranged attack roll?
4) Aid to Demoralize with Intimidation (double Demoralize)? Would you apply a -4 to the Aid check if the character doesn't speak the language?
5) Aid to Demoralize with Deception ("This guy eats dragons for breakfast!")?
6) Aid to Demoralize with Diplomacy (good cop bad cop)?
7) Aid to Scare to Death with Intimidation? And if both characters have the feat?
8) Aid to Disturbing Knowledge with Occultism? And if both characters have the feat?
9) Aid to Battle Medicine with Medicine? And if both characters have the feat?
10) Aid to Legendary Negotiation with Diplomacy? And if both characters have the feat?
11) Aid to Bon Mot with Diplomacy? And if both characters have the feat?
12) Aid to Grapple/Disarm/Trip/Shove with Athletics? And if the monster is 2 size larger than the character and they don't have Titan Wrestler?
13) Aid to Feint with Deception? Anything else?
14) Aid to Stealth with Deception (diversion)?
15) Aid to Recall Knowledge using the same skill? Using another appropriate skill?
16) Aid to Administer First Aid with Medicine?
17) Aid to Treat Poison with Medicine?
18) Aid to Thievery to disable a trap? And if the character doesn't have the proper skill proficiency?
19) Aid to any skill to fight a Haunt using the same skill? Using another skill that can be used to fight the Haunt? And if the character doesn't have the proper skill proficiency?
20) If you find a case I've forgotten, don't hesitate to bring it in.

That's quite the list! I realize the question is an enormous one.
Thanks for your answers!

Amped Tesseract Tunnel states: "When you cast tesseract tunnel, you simply create a tunnel that ends in a square within a range equal to your Speed".
Nothing states that you need line of sight to the square where the tunnel ends and the way it is written makes me think you actually don't need it.

That makes quite a good spell out of it. Which is greatly necessary considering how Unbound Step is bad...

Astral Tether

Ghostly Shift

Astral Tether states: "You can do so only if the amp grants a distinct benefit, not if it alters the amped spell."
Ghostly Shift Amped effect is a distinct benefit that alters the amped spell...

Do you think they should interact together or not?

In my opinion, the benefit is distinct enough so it should work. But I can see a case made that it's an alteration of the amped spell (which all amps are unless you grab them through a feat so it makes Astral Tether half pointless).

I was looking at Distortion Lens and thought it's just a sad spell. As is, it reduces enemy ranged attack's range by 10ft. when they shoot through a 5-foot cube during the nights of full moon. It's so niche I hardly expect a party to use it more than once during their career.

I'd have loved the spell to apply to all abilities, increasing/decreasing range of everything going through it by 10ft., affecting things like allies and enemies' reach, spells range and areas (casting a cone through the lens would increase/decrease the cone area) and such. It would have made the Lens a fantastic tactical ability and the Unbound Step Conscious Mind an interesting Conscious Mind.

It's so sad...

Hi everyone,

It's funny because I really like PF2 balance and I'm not at all a great fan of PF1 options, but reading at the boards it looks like an important proportion of players miss them.
PF2 balance is extremely strong and it's nice for those like me who love balance. But I don't think everyone asks for the exact same level of balance inside a game. I think it would be quite easy to create an optional rule (like Free Archetypes, with a feat every other levels) bringing much of the PF1 options that people miss. I'm even pretty sure the balance of the game would not fall to pieces (besides the obvious increase in character power).

If I decompose PF1 options, I think they fall into a few categories:
- Specialization options: Weapon Focus, Spell Focus, Skill Focus. Certainly the easiests to bring back.
- Stat replacements: Zen Archery, Dex to attack or damage, Charisma to AC. Once again, these options are easy to implement.
- X times per day options: Smite Evil, Arcane Pool, rounds of Rage or Bardic Music. A bit harder to get back, but it could be great to have these kind of options for martials and casters.
- Metamagic feats: Maximized, Quicken, etc... The magic system has greatly changed, so I don't think it would be fine to take them back as is. But we could have more power oriented Metamagic feats.
- Number increases: Power attack, Dodge, Iron Will, etc... Once again, very easy to implement. But these ones feel like tax feats, so I'm not sure people really want them back.
- A lot of specialized crazy options: Sacred Geometry and other similar abilities. Well, there's obviously a big category of feats that have to be handled one by one. These ones are the hardest to get back but I'm not sure they are the most interesting.
- Stat improvements: Belt of Giant Strength, Tome of Intelligence, etc... This category is less of a character option and more of an item one. But it may also be interesting to have a system like Starfinder where you can buy stat improving items with limited scope.

I've posted this in the general discussion because I think it goes beyond homebrew. In my opinion, it's something Paizo should think about in an Unchained book of some kind. If you want, I can make a homebrew draft version of it to show you how I think it can be done (I know PF2 quite well, so I think I can make rules that respect the game logic and balance but I'll certainly need a bit of your help as I don't know PF1 as much as I know PF2).

Give me your opinion on the matter!

Hi everyone,

One aspect I find annoying in PF2 is the need to increase save stats every five levels. It really limits the builds you can make. On top of it, all the save stats are increasing other important values, be it AC, hit points or Perception, making them even more important to increase.

I think it'd be really nice to see a comeback of a save item (that I'll call Cloak of Resistance as it was quite the item back in PF1) allowing you to dump a save stat without being too penalized. An item working like Bullwark, replacing your attribute modifier by a modifier dependent on the grade of the item. With, for example, a +1 bonus at level 7, +2 bonus at level 12 and +3 bonus at level 17. It would be worse than increasing the stat every 5 levels so it won't change the way optimized builds are being made, but it would still prevent a high level character to have a ridiculous save ending up crippled every time they have to roll it.

What do you think about it?

The question is in the title.
From its description it looks like it does, but I'm not sure and I'd like to know what you feel about that.

Ok, this is more of a joke than a real rule question. But Ironblood Stance gives you an attack with the Parry trait. If you are in a situation where you can't use that attack (like if you are in a Battle Form and as such can only use the attacks from the Battle Form) can you still benefit from the Parry trait?

Per RAW, it seems that you can. Now, I have hard time deciding if it's an issue or if it's ok.

Hi everyone,

I'm very often meeting issues with retraining because of a lot of links between feats. The result being that to retrain a single feat I end up retraining a bunch of them with undesirable effects during the retraining time.

I'll give you a simple example to visualize the issues:
Let's say I take First World Magic at level 1 and Empathetic Plea through Ancestral Paragon at level 3. At some point, I want to retrain out of First World Magic and end with Empathetic Plea and Toughness. Technically, I want to exchange First World Magic for Toughness, which is a single feat exchange. But from a strict application of the rules, I will have to retrain Ancestral Paragon for Toughness and then First World Magic for Empathetic Plea.
My main issue isn't the fact that it costs twice more downtime (even if it's annoying) but the fact that I'll end up at some point with an undesirable build (First World Magic and Empathetic Plea).

This illustration is simple, but when you add Dedications, it becomes sometimes a conundrum. For example, let's say I take Archer Dedication at level 2 but I don't want to spend more feats in it (I just want to use a bow). Then at level 8, I want to retrain to end up with my level 2, 4 and 6 feats in a Dedication and my level 8 feat being Archer Dedication. To do that, I need to retrain 3 feats. During this retraining, I'm unable to use a bow, despite the fact that I'll end up with Archer Dedication in the end. And if I haven't timed my retraining properly, I may either hit level 8 quite late, and end up with a significant portion of my level 7 being unable to use a bow, or too soon and ending having to retrain 4 feats instead of 3. If using a bow is a central part of my character (like a bow Toxicologist) I'm quite screwed.

How would you, as a GM, handle such type of situations? Would you allow a character to retrain a bunch of feats simultaneously to avoid the undesirable build issue? Would you allow a character to retrain the actual differences between both builds and ignore the way the feats have been acquired during levelling process? Or any other idea?
And in an environment like PFS where the players are supposed to follow RAW, would you prevent the bow Toxicologist to use a bow for an adventure or two, or would you be quite merciful and allow them to use the original build and not the undesirable combination while retraining?

"You scramble a creature's mental faculties and sensory input. The target must attempt a Will saving throw. Regardless of the result of that save, the target is then temporarily immune for 10 minutes. Warp mind's effects happen instantly, so dispel magic and other effects that counteract spells can't counteract them. However, alter reality, miracle, primal phenomenon, restoration, or wish can still counteract the effects.

Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Success The target spends the first action on its next turn with the confused condition.
Failure The target is confused for 1 minute.
Critical Failure The target is confused permanently."

Warp Mind text strongly implies that the Confused condition it gives is not one you can remove with a mere slap. Still, it says nothing about overriding this way to recover: "Each time you take damage from an attack or spell, you can attempt a DC 11 flat check to recover from your confusion and end the condition."

I've houseruled that the Confused condition was coming back after one round, but this spell needs an errata in my opinion.

Hi everyone,

Spell Swipe is not very clear. If you use a single target spell attack roll spell for your Spellstrike, it doesn't say if you choose the target of the spell before or after knowing if you hit. As it clearly changes the efficiency of the feat.

Thanks for any input.

Hi everyone,

PFS clarifications for Secrets of Magic states:

"Eidolons: Eidolons are not PCs, so they do not count as PCs for effects that scale based on the number of PCs or players.
Eidolons and summoners share a pool of actions. As a result, for Victory Point/success counting systems that allow each PC a limited number of chances to roll, either the summoner or the eidolon can attempt each check. The summoner's player chooses for each attempt which of the two rolls. Any direct consequences of failure apply to whichever creature rolled the check."

Can the inactive Summoner/Eidolon Aid the one making the check?
Act Together allows the inactive Eidolon/Summoner to get one action per round and Aid is one action (and a reaction, but I think it doesn't impact skill challenges much).

Hi everyone,

There's one point of PF2 that puzzles me greatly despite the fact that I like the concept: (non-versatile) heritages.

What are they? What do they represent?

Let's take a few examples to show you how much I'm puzzled.

Human Heritages: "Skilled Heritage", "Versatile Heritage".
Skilled, versatile... that's qualities. I could see some cultural stuff behind, like in some human cultures versatility could be favored.

Lizardfolks Heritages: "Your toes are adapted for gripping and climbing.", "Your thick scales help you retain water and combat the sun's glare.", "You can change your skin color to blend in with your surroundings".
Now it speaks of genetic.

Elf Heritages: "Arctic Elf", "Cavern Elf", "Desert Elf".
Now, it speaks of where my character lives... If my elf is born in the desert but quickly moved to the north pole, is he a Desert or an Arctic Elf? Are elves living in the north and the south pole sharing some common traits or should there also be an "Antarctic Elf" heritage?

Overall, I'm a bit sad about current state of heritages. When I create a character, my heritage is something I absolutely don't care about, most of the time I just take the best one mechanically (so many Cavern Elves, Kyonin should be relocated underground). Outside Versatile Heritages, I can't take any Heritage that really represent something during my character creation (what's a Versatile Human after all?).

I really love Heritages, their concept, but I think somethings amiss. I'd love to see added into the game versatile regional heritage. So if I play a human or elf from Cheliax or Osirion I can take this regional heritage to represent the cultural background of my character. I would find that crazy funny and logical for my cheliaxian Fighter to have a few devil-related Ancestry feats and for my Osirion Rogue to have desert-related Ancestry feats. Dhampirs have access to Vampire Lore, but I think anyone from Ustalav should have access to it, too.

Anyway, that's just an idea, but I wanted to speak about Heritages.

The question is in the title.

I open this discussion in the general discussion and not the homebrew because it's more of a suggestion to Paizo developers than a houserule.
Many players have reported the fact that medium armor is not very appealing, and even worse, it is sometimes not functional for the classes that get access to it. The biggest gripe, in my opinion, is that many classic MAD builds just don't work without an access to Bulwark, which is only possible through Heavy Armor. Examples are Magus, Mutagenist, Warpriest, intimidating Barbarian...
Right now, I can't design a Strength-based character with an interest in Charisma or Intelligence without Sentinel. The power gain is so big that it's a tax feat. I think it's an issue considering the design of PF2. Either all Maguses, Mutagenists, Warpriests and Barbarians should get Heavy Armor Proficiency one way or another, or there's a need to provide them a functional Medium Armor to suit their needs.

Something like a reinforced chainmail with such stats (or similar ones):
Item bonus +5
Max Dex cap +0
Strength Requirement 16
Check penalty -3
Speed penalty 5ft.
Bulwark

With such an armor, all the MAD builds with access to Medium Armor have a go to option instead of relying on Sentinel to catch their go to option. Sentinel will still be appealing (for the extra point of AC at the cost of a speed penalty) but no more mandatory.

Don't hesitate to comment if, like me, you think this is highly needed. Otherwise, let this discussion disappear if I'm the only one concerned about that.

Hi everyone,

There are a few edible consumables that have been released recently: Brewer's Regret, Dragon's Blood Pudding for example.
But there are not much rules about them, besides the general magic items rules.

The thing is that potions and elixirs can be fed to someone else, and these edible consumables don't benefit from this rule per strict RAW. I was wondering what you would, as GMs, allow around your table. Would you stick to RAW and forbid it, or consider that it's very similar to potions and elixirs and allow it (I even think it's easier to feed someone a pill in the middle of the action than a potion)?