John Teixeira's page

Careful, this is all sounding suspiciously close to 4e talk, and we wouldn't want to summon the mob, would we?

For what it's worth, I actually agree with giving classes ways to mitigate incoming damage in differing ways. I think that would be fun.

no it's impossible because to get a 18 you need every boost in it (class, background, free, ancestry)

this leaves you with a "free" boost from background
3 "free" boosts
and 2 more boosts (plus a malus) from race
if you're a dwarf as an example, you'll have a boost on wis and con.
you add the 2 "free" boosts and that brings them to 14.

you still have 1 more "free" boost and 1 more from background.

You can easily start with 3 14s and a 18 if you get a malus (Cha in the case of dwarves)

bringing the dwarf monk damage up to 1d8+2 as an example

But in OP's example, since he went human, he should have a tleast one more +2 (+2 to strength for monk, +2 cha for rogue)

to put it simpler, if you don't want a 16, you can have a 18/14/14/14/10/8 or a 18/14/14/12/10/10

OP had it as 18/14/14/10/10/10

You essentially just repeated what I wrote in your own words. I don't know why you said you disagreed with me?

Mergy wrote:

So fists are a simple weapon, which means almost every class gets proficiency. They're also agile and finesseable, which means the rogue can add Dex to damage for them, as well as sneak attack.

And this means that at level 1 at least, most rogues will outdamage most monks in fisticuffs. It seems like most monks are leaning towards Dexterity builds, so let's take two level 1 characters (one rogue, one monk) with the following stat array:

Str 10, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 10

Monk is attacking at +5 for 1d6 (average damage 3.5). Rogue is attacking at +5 for 1d4+4 (average damage 6.5). The monk could use wolf or tiger stance to increase damage, but that still only puts them to 4.5 on average. Granted, flurry of blows lets the monk attack twice with one action, but it's still a pretty interesting look at low level disparity.

Also, the rogue can wield a bow without penalty while attacking. The monk has to spend a feat on shuriken. :(

That stat array is impossible though.

Monk will have at least 12 str and rogue will usually use his +2 for Cha (half his skills require deception)

You're also dismissing that monk may as well be in a stance, so we're already at d8+1 (already at 5.5 vs 6.5)

I'll take 2 attacks for 5.5 (flurry) vs 1 attack for 10 (sneak) any day. Especially since sneak is much more circumstantial.

Also,there's no reason not to raise strength as a monk, you get 4 ability boosts/5, both int and Cha are more or less worthless for you.

It's only impossible because it's technically less powerful than it should be for a human. +1 mod to dex and +1 mod to con from ancestry, +1 mod to dex and wis from background, +1 mod to dex, con, wis, cha for free boost and +1 mod to dex from Rogue/Monk.

Dwarf would net you -1 cha mod for +1 con mod or wis mod, Elf would net you -1 con for +1 int mod, gnome would be -1 str mod for +1 cha mod, goblin is -1 wis mod for +1 cha mod, halfling -1 str for +1 wis.

John Teixeira wrote:

It's important to note that critting on your attack roll reduces the enemies save by one step, meaning if you crit, no matter what the pit fiend does, even if they roll a natural 20, they take full damage from the spell at the very least, if not double damage from failing the save + you critting the hit since there is no such thing as critically succeeding a disintegrate save. I'm not sure if Balor's or Pit Fiend's take half damage from all spells or something but otherwise I don't see how Disintegrate's expected damage could ever be less than 50% barring absorption and the like.

We're both wrong.

Without enhancements you have a 50% chance to miss (zero damage) and a 50% chance (or much higher for the Pit Fiend) chance for them to successfully save and take half damage. That's an expected value of 37.5% or less of the average damage dice when you decide to cast the spell - 50% chance of zero on a miss plus 25% chance of a hit and failed save (full damage) plus 25% chance of a hit and successful save (half damage) equals 37.5% of expected damage (not accounting for your small 5% crit chances at each stage, which boosts this but still leaves you well under 50%).

Again, my point is that you really need those hit enhancers, and save debuffs don't hurt.

Ah, I was too caught up thinking about the true strike value and totally ignored the fact that you could just flat out miss. XD

I certainly wasn't disagreeing with your point though, considering a 9th level disintegrate's average damage is just 1/3rd of a pit fiends HP, missing would be a disastrous waste. I don't really think the spell is designed for Pit Fiends and Balors though, more for mid-power creatures than the late game ones.

Should bungle exist in core to counteract it?

In 5e blur worked like this defensively and was king of defensive buffs.

I would certainly argue blur wasn't king of defensive buffs in 5e. It required concentration which is WAY more limiting in 5e than it is in PF2e. Mirror Image on the other hand didn't, and that alone made it better because it could be utilized with a utility or debuff spell that required concentration. As for Bungle, sure, I'm all up for more spells!

The main thing to note is that repeatedly casting a spell for 10 minutes inflicts Fatigued until you "take a significant break".

That's 100 castings, should be perfectly fine for most rooms and once you get 4th level spells you find out the 5ft cube anyways.

I believe anything that utilizes the Command Activation, Focus Activation, or Operate Activation would require RP to activate unless specified otherwise in the activation entry of the item. Investing doesn't change the cost of activating, it's just an additional cost associated with the magic item as far as I am aware.

For the Collar of Inconspicuousness, it would require Investment, as well as a Focus Activation to transform the companion into a tiny creature. Ending the effect is a Focus Activation that DOES NOT cost RP. I believe the wording here is problematic since Focus Activations do not cost RP, "Activate an Item" activities do. It may be better to change the wording to reflect that.

Regarding the Cloak of Elvenkind, I believe the only thing that requires Activation is the Invisibility, which would require both a Focus Activation and an Operate Activation, however magic items are activated by utilizing the "Activate an Item" activity which is where the RP cost comes from, and so still only costs 1 RP since you are only using "Activate an Item" once, but it requires 2 actions. This could also be cleared up to make it more obvious that it's an activation. My reasoning is that it says "If you activate the cloak, you pull the hood up and are affected by invisibility..." though being an undercase A, you could make the case that it isn't necessarily RAW.

It seems fairly stupid to me to include powers in a section called spells that lists the spells and not the powers and is far enough removed from the class section to be highly annoying when flipping back and forth.

Why are they not in the classes themselves, or in the event that classes gain access to the same power that I'm unaware of, why not their own section?

The verbiage in the shield spell says "This counts as using the Raise a Shield action". Then in the sidebar it says , "You can use these actions while shield is active". One of these actions is Raise a Shield. This would seem to imply that you need to cast Shield, then use an action to raise a shield, but I don't think that's the case.

My question, which of these is "more specific" and so overrides the other?

Neither overrides the other. Casting the shield spell activates the "Raise a Shield" action when it is cast, it then allows you to shield block as a reaction until your next turn or until you use the shield block once. The Shield Actions table lists the actions the Shield Spell gives you access to, you just wouldn't want to use "Raise a Shield" a second time as it would be redundant, but there could be additional splat material where it's important the shield spell gives access to the "Raise a Shield" action.

Honestly I'm glad it's there and think more things like it should be done, it would be annoying to look up shield then go look up what actions shields give me in the equipment section or w/e to figure out what the hell to do like the rest of this book.

Kringress wrote:

Disintegrate is going to be the 6th and higher go to spell I think.

12 D10 that can be heightened to 20 D10 at 20th level, with the target getting 2 chances to be criticaled (once on the to hit roll, and second on the save). Best they can get is 1/2 damage instead of the 5d6 the 1st edition spell gave.

This is really risky without True Strike and buffs. A 20th level Wizard with a +4 Spell Duelist's wand and 18 dexterity has (20+3+4+4) +31 to hit with a ranged touch attack, which is about as optimized as you can get without burning attributes to get Dex up another point, and that wand costs A LOT.

A Pit Fiend has TAC 41, a Balor TAC 42. Without True Strike and/or a big conditional bonus from a Bard or Heroism plus flatfooted you've basically got a 50% chance to entirely waste your spell right there. Flatfooted plus max heroism/Bard still gives you around a 25% chance to miss without True Strike, but at least now your crit chance is pretty respectable, especially with a True Strike.

Your maximized DC is 40, and a Pit Fiend makes his Fort save on a 6, a Balor on 9. You can improve that with a Spell Penetration (Wizard) feat by 1, and more if you debuff ahead of time, but basically the expected damage without outside help or set up against a Balor is less than 25% of the average damage of a Disintegrate.

It's a strong spell, but your equal level enemies have equally strong defenses. Plan and prepare or you're going to be sorry. Save debuffing takes a while and is unreliable, but maxing your chance to hit is more within your control.

It's important to note that critting on your attack roll reduces the enemies save by one step, meaning if you crit, no matter what the pit fiend does, even if they roll a natural 20, they take full damage from the spell at the very least, if not double damage from failing the save + you critting the hit since there is no such thing as critically succeeding a disintegrate save. I'm not sure if Balor's or Pit Fiend's take half damage from all spells or something but otherwise I don't see how Disintegrate's expected damage could ever be less than 50% barring absorption and the like.

Can you explain "combat useful" information? I'm guessing this was a tactic in PF1E that I'm unaware of? Thanks.

I would assume something similar to this, players notice magic affecting the boss and actively try to dispel it or notice a magic weapon and actively try to disarm/dispel it. Essentially, doing something they otherwise might not have based on information gathered.

John Teixeira wrote:

sherlock1701 wrote:

The issue mainly shows up in multi character fights. An alchemist can hit several people with acid bombs in a round or two, rogue hits for bleed damage, wizard tacks on some persistent fire, and now we have 3 or 4 enemies with 2 or 3 persistent effects to track.

Not to mention that concentration can be broken far easier than persistent damage can.

Only if the enemy's using Readied Actions or access to Attack of Opportunity. Concentration breaks only if the damage is dealt as a reaction the action to maintain concentration. Even if the enemy strikes you three times on their turn, you don't lose the spell.

Free actions also work for breaking concentration, but yes, I don't see how that's harder than a 5% chance after taking persistent damage to remove it, or spending actions to increase the chance to 30% but getting hit again by an ability with the same type of persistent damage nullifies that increased chance again.

Of course, I’ve heard all the rationales about how adventurers aren’t supposed to be crafters, the crafting rules aren’t made to benefit adventurers, etc. but I would argue that some players, myself and several members of my gaming group included, happen to enjoy playing crafting-type characters so why NOT make crafting rules that DO support that play style as valid and fun?

Not only is the character concept of the weaponmaster forging their own weapons really cool, but to add on to your point, only the Barbarian and Monk do not have Crafting as a Signature Skill. This clearly shows to me that Paizo intends players to be able to craft if they so choose.

For the Deadly weapon trait do you use the dice listed just for the extra critical damage or do they replace the weapons normal dice? For example Rapier 1d6 Deadly: so on a critical do you use 1d6+1d8 or 2d6+1d8? Page 415 seems incorrect either way.

Apply crit as per normal, then add the deadly die on top

The issue mainly shows up in multi character fights. An alchemist can hit several people with acid bombs in a round or two, rogue hits for bleed damage, wizard tacks on some persistent fire, and now we have 3 or 4 enemies with 2 or 3 persistent effects to track.

Not to mention that concentration can be broken far easier than persistent damage can.

Honestly I think this would be an unnecessary change, this isn't why two-handers are bad. Two-handers are bad because Power Attack is far worse than Double Slice.

John Teixeira wrote:

Alex Mack wrote:

Colette Brunel wrote:

That said, negative energy pools are bad, and I think that they should be given an upgrade. By selecting a negative energy pool, a cleric takes away their ability to top off the party's hit points between combats, and why would a cleric do that?

Channel Smite can end combats real quick?

Unless I read it incorrectly, Channel Smite does not require a Negative Energy Pool, any channel energy works with it. So I believe his point still stands, if you can channel smite with positive energy, why choose negative? It seems so much weaker by comparison.

Channel Smite isn't flat damage, its Positive or Negative, so a Positive Cleric would only take Channel Smite if they're fighting Undead.

Ah I see, I hadn't read the ability, just the prerequisites.

John Teixeira wrote:

Secret Wizard wrote:

John Teixeira wrote:

The only characters who use strength in 5e are two handers, grapplers/shovers, and the unoptimized.

Please don't forget Quarterstaff + Dueling + Polearm Master cheesers like me. STRanger for life.

I mean, a 5e ranger using a quarterstaff to do a PAM build would fall under "unoptimized."

Not if you manage to shove in shillelagh cantrip in the mix

Well you can't get shillelagh as a ranger without taking a feat or dipping another class. In the case of the feat, you'd get way more damage out of GWM and a glaive anyways and in the case of dipping there are way better dips for PAM builds. I'm not saying it's bad, it's just not optimized.

Colette Brunel wrote:

That said, negative energy pools are bad, and I think that they should be given an upgrade. By selecting a negative energy pool, a cleric takes away their ability to top off the party's hit points between combats, and why would a cleric do that?

Channel Smite can end combats real quick?

Unless I read it incorrectly, Channel Smite does not require a Negative Energy Pool, any channel energy works with it. So I believe his point still stands, if you can channel smite with positive energy, why choose negative? It seems so much weaker by comparison.

John Teixeira wrote:

The only characters who use strength in 5e are two handers, grapplers/shovers, and the unoptimized.

Please don't forget Quarterstaff + Dueling + Polearm Master cheesers like me. STRanger for life.

I mean, a 5e ranger using a quarterstaff to do a PAM build would fall under "unoptimized."

Under Reading a Bloodline Entry, it says you gain a spell slot whenever you gain a spell from your bloodline. However, the bloodlines only grant spells up to 9th level. When you select the 10th-level granting feat, it gives you only 1 spell slot of 10th level.

Sorcerers are part of the union against Wizards along with the other spellcasters.

And, as he said, under "Table 3-20: Sorcerer Spells Per Day*" the asterisk denotes that "In addition to the spell slots shown in this table, your bloodline gives you a bonus spell slot of each level you can cast." If you select the class feat that gives you the ability to cast 10th level spells, then you gain another 10th level spell slot from your bloodline. I get that the book isn't laid out very well but at least look at what he was talking about instead of ignoring him.

Anyone else notice the deep irony that the caster meant to have access to all its spells at all times, the Sorcerer...

Now has a class feature that they need to swap per day, which changes what spells they can cast?

Or the sweet irony that the wizard, the class that is supposed to prepare everything ahead of time in a batman-esque sort of situation, has access to a class feat that allows them to spend 10 minutes to swap out any spell they prepared with any other of the same level an unlimited number of times per day.

True, I can't argue with that.

That being said, in my own opinion, heightening isn't so valuable as to make the wizard de facto better than a flexible sorcerer. I'd be perfectly happy as a sorcerer to heighten summon monster and fireball for my two free heightens, for instance, and then I'll use my highest level spells at their levels when necessary. Typically, heightened spells aren't any better or even as good as higher level spells anyway (with the notable exception of summon monster).

Given the wizard only has 5 or 6 spells in his spellbook per level that he has to precisely apportion with prepared casting, and doesn't necessarily have any great incentive to heighten anyway, I'll happily play my imperial sorcerer with 4 spells per level that I can cast any way I see fit.

I'd also play a wizard too, honestly; when I play Vancian wizards I tend to develop a standard loadout anyway. The drain focus mechanic gives them greater flexibility as well. My guess is that the two classes won't play that differently on average or have too much to distinguish between them in terms of role or efficacy.

By that logic though, it seems the sorcerer's heighten is even less effective. Considering by your own admission that heightening spells isn't particularly useful outside of summon monster and the fact that [insert arbitrary percentage] of the time you'll summon the most powerful monster you can so it can actually be effective, the ability for the sorcerer to spontaneously choose what level of summon monster he would like to cast seems highly lackluster. So if heightening fireball isn't super useful because higher level spells are better anyways and heightening summon monster isn't super useful because you'll mostly just cast the highest level version anyways it seems like a knock on the sorcerer to me, not the wizard.

I'm talking training in more skills or making them an expert.

When you hit level 3, you can train 5 more skills or make trained skills into expert. At 1st level you train in 9+int skills+background. But at 3rd level, you only train in 5+int skills. Or make 5+int skills into expert. Same with 5th level.
Your bloodline automatically makes you trained in certain skills at first level. Your bloodline skills don't automatically hit expert or master.

My wording was a little off, but yes, all skills increase every level. You train skills or turn them into expert every odd numbered level.

That isn't how skill increases work unless I'm reading something incorrectly, as far as I'm aware every "Skill Increases" entry says you increase ONE skill at the appropriate levels, not "# + int."

I love how many people in this thread don't understand what good game design is.

Why is this a Rogue class feature instead of just how Finesse weapons work? D&D 5e figured this out like 5 years ago, guys.

Yes, let's talk about the edition that all but killed the strength stat lol. Outside of the Athletics skill and Two Handed Weapons, there was zero reason to use strength, even when they gave it it's own saving throw it still wasn't as good as dex. What point is there to use strength when you can get just as much AC if not more, cheaper and quicker with dex, you do even more damage than two handers if you use a bow, just as durable, more skills tied to it, have a far better saving throw and have the stat tied to initiative in that system. The only characters who use strength in 5e are two handers, grapplers/shovers, and the unoptimized. 5e was a terrible comparison as it is widely known that dex is a god stat in that system. So yeah, I'll gladly take dex being just one of the best stats instead of it being a god stat.

Also, what exactly does the feat do? From what I'm reading, you make two strikes, but the prerequisite is that your MAP must already be at -8 or worse. This implies you've already made 2 strikes... so you get to make a 3rd and 4th at the same time with one action (as per the single [Action] symbol)?

Yes, that is what the feat says.

And why the descriptor "These do not count toward the multiple attack penalty until the second Strike."? If this is my 3rd (and 4th) strike (again, assuming the -8 MAP), why mention another 2nd strike?

Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly and am misunderstanding what the feat actually does. But if the purpose of 2E is to make rules more easy to comprehend, the language of this feat doesn't seem to accomplish that.

I dunno, it seemed straightforward to me. If you are wielding two weapons, each in a different hand, and have a -8 MAP with both weapons, you make a strike, this strike does not increase your MAP. You then make another strike, after this, you increase your MAP as though you had struck twice (which you did.)

The fighter's Attack of Opportunity needs better wording for its timing. As it stands, it is currently unclear on when the attack takes place; it could very well occur after a ranged attack, or after a creature has moved, thus making the attack invalid in the first place.

Disrupting on page 297 would suggest AoO occurs immediately after the trigger, but immediately before the effects of the trigger occur, so as to disrupt potential spellcasting and the like.

Elegos wrote:

The problem is that while there are 36 possible fighters, those 36 possible fighters are not particularly different outside of"wields a different weapon"

And any 2 "great weapon champion" fighters are going to be practically identical. Meanwhile in pf2 withnchoices every level you get a real diversity of options.

Funny that in the many games I've run for 5e, I've never actually seen two GW Fighters that were identical.

This white room analysis of 5e is very poorly done and shows a great misunderstanding of the system.

Even for two completely identical characters, say two variant human champion fighters with GWM, and the outlander background, both wielding great swords - those two can still be unqiue people just by putting in the tiniest effort of role-playing. All you have to do is think beyond the character sheet; don't rely on your character sheet "buttons" as the only options you have in game. This isn't a video game, and the mechanics aren't the end-all-be-all of the system.

When people talk about role-play vs roll-play, this is almost literally what they mean. Folks claiming that two characters are identical just because they share some of the mechanics together are those exact type of folks who miss out on all the wonderful role-playing aspects of the game. Don't skip that; there's a lot of fun to he had in that arena, and you can really bring out the flavor and personality of your character with it.

And if you don't believe me, then I challenge you to try it. Play a game where you're all required to play mechanically identical characters, and see how the role-play can make each of you shine in your own unique way.

I just genuinely don't understand this argument, it seems to come from a lack of understanding that you can both roll dice AND role-play with your friends at the same time. You literally just said "Even for two completely identical characters,..." you should have ended your comment there and realized that played exactly into what the poster you quoted was talking about. I can role-play a frail middle aged gnome wizard with PTSD from his time as an artillery mage in the mage wars of 3288 in any system that lets me be both a gnome and a wizard, I can't get more options in a system with less options.