Karneios's page

Don't forget solar detonation does have the incapacitation trait (for the game I'm in now where I'm playing a purely fire kineticist the dm is running it as the incap trait just applies to the blind/dazzle effect and not the damage)

Gotta have your weapon ready for when you fight a will o wisp

Does smashing the mirror even return taken allies? I didn't notice anything in the text saying it does, there's the legendary thievery check to return them within 10 minutes and the 3 action move a mirror copy can take to reswap (which presumably after 10 minutes the taken party member could do from the other side)

The only way CHA stops being the stat for innate spells is if you take the psychic feat that turns it into int, having spellcaster investment does not change that stat it just gives you a proficiency in the tradition (or now in the remaster just gives you proficiency in spells in general but the stat still stays the same)

Class DC does not apply to the dragon disciple's dragon's breath focus spell, it is still the sorcerer focus spell so it's a charisma arcane spell

This whole old lady idea just feels to me like what would be something similar to a kind of rules lawyering to try and make it so the DM can never target you "fairly" without needing to ever roll for it

Baarogue wrote:

The stationary move action bit isn't an exception to the leaving your square during movement part, because you don't leave your square.

The whole point of the exception is that the stationary move actions are exceptional. If the exception wasn't in there, Stand and in-place Fly would never provoke Reactive Strike at all as there is no leaving your square to react to.

It would provoke reactive strike because the trigger has both "leaves a square during a move action it's using" as well as "a creature within your reach uses a manipulate or a move action", both fly and stand are move actions

Okay, so I'm not entirely sure if this is a me problem or a book problem.

I think the spell Harm is missing a 'Defense' entry in the stat block before the spell's description. I took a quick look at some other spells, and that entry seems normal for damaging spells that don't require an attack roll, like Falling Stars, Fireball, Frostbite, Lightning Bolt, etc.

Harm doesn't have that entry. It *does* mention a Fortitude save in the text of the spell, though. Funnily enough it uses language near-identical to Frostbite, which lists 'Defense: Fortitude' before the description. So, for consistency's sake, I think Harm ought to have it as well.

The only thing giving me pause is, it was like this in the 2E Pathfinder CRB as well. So maybe there's a reason I'm missing?

It is more a mirror of heal than a regular damage spell, since heal also doesn't have a defense entry I imagine it is intended (I personally think it should have the healing effect in the text before the damage but that's not really an errata thing just an opinion, I understand them wanting have both have an ordering of effect on living then undead instead of heal effect then damage)

Old Mage Jatembe gets marked as specifically a wizard but that's never really sat right with me since I read his whole thing as using both arcane and primal pretty equally, I feel like he should have what most NPCs get in a special title rather than being wizard

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

<twitch> I hope we're not going back to the days of "this fire is so hot it can even burn a fire elemental!" Bypassing an immunity that something has for being tough is one thing, bypassing an immunity it has by virtue of its core nature is quite another.

Don't all the greater elemental runes have some ability to bypass resistances?

That particular aspect doesn't sound new to me.

They just bypass resistance, not immunity

"AI" Art is a tool made by stealing art from artists for the primary purpose of replacing their job with automation, I don't see how it is hard to understand why it is unliked, also for some people they trigger a real uncanny disgust in (I am part of some people)

I'm not clear if werecreature is an ancestry or an archetype? the preview calls it an archetype and then right after that it's a double-length ancestry

I don't like it because it feels like nothing, so like nothing I don't even care if I can't roll stealth for initiative and don't really feel rewarded when I do

I would imagine if limited to remaster stuff the magus just keeps using telekinetic projectile, gouging claw and/or ignition (and probably that d8 psychic cantrip with multiclass), there was all that cheering on these forums that the magus can further ignore its spellcasting stat after all

Electric arc was hit in the same way that the majority of cantrips were, removing damage mod to replace it with one extra dice, if EA was overpowered I would've expected it to see a unique nerf and not the same nerf cantrips got in general

Phase Bolt from Dark Archive has been errata'ed to do 3d4 instead of 1d4 + Ability Mod.

In a similar vein, Astral Rain has been changed from 2d4 + Ability Mod to 4d4.

Those are the only two examples of that type of increase I've been able to find (besides Needle Darts which everyone was already mentioning.)

I did not notice phase bolt in my previous read of the errata so that's my mistake, astral rain I wouldn't really count for the conversation since that's a level 6 psychic unique cantrip

Karneios wrote:

roquepo wrote:

Would you say the cantrip change has widen even more the difference between casters that have a good focus spell (or have focus cantrips) and those who don't between levels 1-4?

Also, a few of them were also buffed a bit, right? A few of them do 3d4 instead of 1d4 + mod. Do these feel better or is it mostly the same?

None of the cantrips in player core are 3d4, that's just needle darts

We've been told Rage of Elements spells were made to be pre-compatible with remaster changes, so it's understandable people add its spells into the pool of 'remastered spells'.

The post I quoted said a few do 3d4 instead of 1d4+mod, I was pointing out that nothing has gotten that change and there is just the one cantrip that does 3d4 which is needle darts

Would you say the cantrip change has widen even more the difference between casters that have a good focus spell (or have focus cantrips) and those who don't between levels 1-4?

Also, a few of them were also buffed a bit, right? A few of them do 3d4 instead of 1d4 + mod. Do these feel better or is it mostly the same?

None of the cantrips in player core are 3d4, that's just needle darts

I will say you cannot get everything from champion reaction with the multiclass, it does have the two upgrades at 9 and then 11

You could also just ignore fob and go martial artist for grabbing the agile finesse backstabber d8 stance in either stumbling if you want armor or wolf if you don't care and wolf can also upgrade into the two action fatal d12 move that prones

I always guessed the strength requirement on form control was there to be a sorta guide to that if you were gonna use the form controlled forms in combat you'd want high strength anyway to have better accuracy from using your own unarmed attack mod

Seeing the new level 1 warrior muse bard feat does make me think if the resentment ability should just be once per cast of the source of the condition in the same way (as an alternate thing to put in to balance the ability more than kill the familiar when you can)

Karneios wrote:

The most recommended change of tactics I've seen has been to stabilise and leave the dropped person on the ground where the player can't do s~**, the other one I have seen after that where the downed player can actually do things has been to just get them up and then everybody run away if someone gets dropped

That is the reactive change.

The proactive change mentioned several times is ensuring PCs do not go down. Builds, tactics, healing are all tools that will be used differently in light of this.

Defenses are becoming more valuable than they were.

I don't see that as being a change though, buildwise wis/con and either str or dex depending armour were already highly valued, healing to keep people up was already happening because the action economy of going down was already bad

It comes back to my problem with this change/clarification making the game more lethal doesn't hurt the strongest groups but does hurt both the weaker classes and the weaker players (meaning both less interested/capable in the tactical side of it and also just people new to the system) and I don't really see the benefit of it, you can say oh just run dying how you want but new players are the most likely to just run as written

Karneios wrote:

I feel like the strength of the witch has become so much more tied into the question "how fast will the DM kill the familiar each adventuring day", at least for the strong familiar abilities, for stuff like a 5 foot burst of difficult terrain that's less so

Depending on interpretation of the familiar ability to be a tattoo or otherwise inconspicuous and whether that impacts them using those abilities.

for tattoo with the assumption that it does work that does mean you're a witch within 15ft of the enemy making it a riskier plan

I feel like the strength of the witch has become so much more tied into the question "how fast will the DM kill the familiar each adventuring day", at least for the strong familiar abilities, for stuff like a 5 foot burst of difficult terrain that's less so

The most recommended change of tactics I've seen has been to stabilise and leave the dropped person on the ground where the player can't do s++*, the other one I have seen after that where the downed player can actually do things has been to just get them up and then everybody run away if someone gets dropped

The only variants in gm core are automatic bonus progression, free archetype, level 0 characters and proficiency without level

Chrono wrote:

Mathmuse wrote:

The Wounded condition seemed like to say that the character resumed dying at the value where they had left off, unless they had medical treatment that restored their deep vitality.

So this isn't quite correct.

No matter how high your Dying value gets, if Dying is removed by any means other than spending hero points, your wounded increases by 1. It doesn't go to the value Dying was at, or anything like that - it is explicitly designed to counteract 'yo-yo' healing that plagues games like 5e, where there is no reason to heal until somebody goes down - Wounded encourages more proactive healing, to prevent going down to start.

Essentially, if a character goes down to a crit, they go to dying 2. They take damage when they are inside the splash radius of a bomb, dying 3. The cleric casts heal on them, all dying cleared, Wounded 1.

Sorry, my lack of experience with the Wounded condition means that I have not memorized how the numbers work.

I read about D&D 5th Edition providing too much mid-combat healing, but I had not imagined that it meant letting teammates drop before healing them. My PF1 and PF2 players are careful to heal their teammates before they dropped, except in the three situations that I mentioned in my previous comment. And in the Primal Bandersnatch example, the party healer was casting ranged Heal every turn on the defender facing down the bandersnatch, while carefully standing just outside the 30-foot range of the the bandersnatch's Confusing Gaze. PF2 combat is so fast that having a teammate down for a single round would be a major handicap.

5e's yoyo healing came about because its healing is generally bad and healing word exists as a bonus action, trying to keep people up in that system is just wasting your time, it is also the only system I know of where it's such a constant thing because that's kind of how they built the system (also the only example that really gets made)

I feel like you could make an argument with the "some things that affect spells also affect impulses" clause mostly because I think that only coming into play when it hurts the kineticist feels bad

Bluemagetim wrote:

Wounded tells you here when you will actually add your wounded value to your dying value. It happens when you gain the dying condition.

It doesn't happen any other time. So when you increase your already existing dying condition you are not gaining it.

That's the old rule, yes. From what I understand, though, the Remastered version of that same rule (the Wounded entry, in the conditions list) actually stated that you add your Wounded value when you "gain or increase" the Dying condition, not just when you "gain" it like we're used to. This specific text change is the reason people are talking about adding Wounded again every time you get Dying from any source (hitting 0 HP, being damaged at 0 HP, failing a recovery check, etc.), not the wonky text in the Recovery Check section.

They did not update the wounded trait to say gain or increase, it said that in the playtest and that's it, player core wounded still just says gain

For treat wounds the ward medic and continual recovery skill feats make those restrictions go away as they increase but yeah the expectation by the game is that in general the party can heal themselves up between fights

SatiricalBard wrote:

Can a Champion become Sanctified? If so, do they do this the same way as Clerics?

I would tend to assume that a Champion must be Sanctified, and equally, must choose a deity that allows this. Certainly that's how I would rule in my game at the moment, if I had any players who wanted to be champions. Unless at some point we ever get rules for Champions of Neutrality, which... doesn't really make a lot of sense. Champions were always more about alignment and only incidentally about worship, just as most clerics were primarily about worship and only incidentally about alignment. But we'll see what actually happens with them when Player Core 2 comes out next year.

If a champion had to be sanctified then there can be no champions of gozreh or pharasma and probably more in the future that have no options for sanctification and while sure I could see that for gozreh maybe, I do not see champion of pharasma being something that could not happen

The other question here in terms of how much this changes how the game plays is beyond the encounter when someone goes down. I'd assume it's now beyond the question to push on if you can't clear the Wounded condition.

So you've got to Treat Wounds to clear that. Which also means you probably shouldn't rely on Treat Wounds just to heal up, since then you won't be able to clear Wounded. Unless you're in a place where you can safely hole up for an hour of course.

Seems to me this could dramatically shorten the adventuring day.

Wounded goes away on successful healing with treat wounds as well as going to max hp

Tactical Drongo wrote:

Cyder wrote:

For the cost of a general feat I thonk it should level with class weapon proficiency. Advanced weapons really aren't that big of an upgrade, certainly not worth more than a general feat.

Right now its a disadvantage to use an advanced weapon even for martial classes and at that point I ask why even bother to print them. They are too niche and take up book space that would be better used for things that would see a decent amount of play at most tables.

this

as they are they are too niche and might disappear as well

I hope this gets errata'd, because there are 7 usually limited ways to get an advanced weapon

1. play a fighter, pick up a feat to have proper proficiency level 6
2. play a gunslinger and get one of the abysmal few advanced guns, also lvl 6 feat
3. play an ancestry with an advanced weapon and get their training feat (with a martial class)
4. red mantis assassin archetype
5. butterfly blade archetype
6. sword scion background or aldori duelist archetype, possibly in tandem
7. advanced weapon feat, usually as preperation for 4,5, sometimes 6 because otherwise every other martial outperformes you starting at level 5 (which makes this feat more for casters)

8. Be a Cleric or Champion of a deity whose Favored Weapon is an advanced weapon.

Champion doesn't give advanced weapon proficiency, I remember this from my time trying to make a champion of Achaekek

The combat utility of conceal spell is really just it lets you get around silence since silence now just turns off the ability to cast non-subtle spells in it, I'm not really looking at new player feats and judging them based on what if an npc has it though because that doesn't feel like how those really get built anyway?

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

AestheticDialectic wrote:

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

I don't like that Gouging Claw is even more a mandatory cantrip for Magi.

If I'm playing a Magus, I want to do magic with my SWORD, not a shapeshifted unarmed strike! And casting it through a weapon just seems SILLY! What, your sword shapeshifts into a claw that you swing like a backscratcher with a bad attitude?!

I personally rather use ignition over gouging claw

Really? According to this analysis here ignition is one of the worst damaging cantrip options...

Ignition seems to be balanced as a melee cantrip with ranged as an extra effect. I think the analysis also under values fire damage because resistance is common but fire weakness is also common making it a pretty good thing to have in your back pocket. I don't think the melee ranged versatility is actually useful because players tend to pick one or the other exclusively.

It's honestly kind of weird that melee cantrips seem to do less damage. Needle darts is an average 7.5 while gouging claw is an average 7. Allot of ranged cantrips do an average of 4-5 but they're all multi target so easily do double.

I think either melee ignition and gouging claw need more damage or ranged ignition needs a change like being made a reflex save. Having the versatility of reflex save or ac attack may be worth it's lower damage.

as a d6 vs a d4 they scale much better than needle darts, going from 2-12 vs 3-12 at 1st rank up to 3-18 vs 4-16 at 2nd and then 4-24 vs 5-20 at 3rd and so on

The subtle trait is mostly on spells that require it to function anyway. Needing to loudly announce that you're charming someone or turning invisible rather defeats the purpose. Shows up on some mental incapacitation spells. You'll have to go back to figuring out if somebody's acting strange the old fashioned way. And if your gm wants to wipe you with a +3 caster incapacitating you, you weren't getting out of that, subtle or not.

It's on those spells and also all other spells if you have the conceal spell feat

I think they wanted to clarify the original ruling.

The way some of you are reading it is nutso:

1. Knocked down dying 1.

2. Healed up to wounded 1. Dying condition gone.

3. Knocked down a second time, Dying 2 because regain Dying 1 condition plus wounded condition for Dying 2 when unconscious. Wounded 1.

4. Then you're all saying the designers intended for you to miss a recover check when Dying 2 and suddenly go from Dying 2 to Dying for because increase dying by 1 and add wounded a second time? I don't think they mean this myself.

I think it's the old method.

1. Knocked down Dying 1.

2. Wounded 1 when healed up.

3. Knocked down Dying 1 plus wounded 1 for Dying 2.

4. Miss recovery check dying condtion goes to dying 2 plus Wounded 1 for Dying 3.

You only add your current wounded condition one time. It is clarifying that you add it to your current dying condition. Not each time you increase your dying condition.

I'm not going to change it until I see a designer provide a clear example they intended the dying condition to rise that quickly.

I think some you of are reading more into than is there.

Maybe some designer will clarify and it will be that deadly. I don't know. I know I'm going to keep running it as I was and this seems like the same rule I was using.

The designers have clarified it, the clarification is the remaster with the text that if you fail a recovery check you add dying equal to 1 (2 on a crit fail) plus your wounded, I do not like it and we can all run it however we want but it is pretty unambiguous on the wording of it with a link to an image from the remaster itself here: from the pathfinder memes reddit

Karneios wrote:

keftiu wrote:

I don’t think gods with bans on lying are unreasonable for adventurers; if you wanna play a liar, choose one of the hundreds of deities or 23 classes that allow it. Very few of those Anathema forbid letting others lie - a benefit of adventuring in parties.

I find them unreasonable but that's also because I find the idea of a god that is so against lying they will strip your magic from you if you do it but is fine if you willfully let others lie for you to be incredibly unbelievable

More unbelievable than one who forbids violence for followers, but lets them pal around with three combat-hungry heroes?

I find that as unbelievable yes, I'd also say that such an anathema would match with this thread but I'm not familiar with gods with such an anathema, for ones I do know to compare it with I'd say it's like a cleric of pharasma adventuring with a necromancer and even getting them to raise undead for them

I don’t think gods with bans on lying are unreasonable for adventurers; if you wanna play a liar, choose one of the hundreds of deities or 23 classes that allow it. Very few of those Anathema forbid letting others lie - a benefit of adventuring in parties.

I find them unreasonable but that's also because I find the idea of a god that is so against lying they will strip your magic from you if you do it but is fine if you willfully let others lie for you to be incredibly unbelievable

MEATSHED wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

MEATSHED wrote:

Yeah lawful and chaos especially have issues because, with how it's described in pretty much every book, following a religion is by its nature is lawful, which seems like an issue for chaotic gods.

Not all beliefs follow a strictly organized religion.

Yes but that isn't what being lawful is. If you follow a code, even if it's an entirely personally one that you made up, that is lawful.

That is one take on Lawful. It's far from the only one.

It's the one that's in the core rulebook's alignment section

"Lawful characters have a set system in life, whether it’s meticulously planning day-to-day activities, carefully following a set of official or unofficial laws, or strictly adhering to a code of honor"

Karneios wrote:

Arazni is NOW a god, she hasn't really done anything beyond hide and maintain her privacy since becoming a god since as far as I know that happened after she got free of Geb by having her body be destroyed by the positive energy nuke Tar Baphon unleashed in tyrant's grasp, also talking about how evil she is having vengeance in her motivations and edicts, that's Calistria's whole thing and she's not evil

Calistria has the advantage of not being power-hungry, not being cruel (just vengeful), and not having ruled a nation of undead who eat people for hundreds of years. And also not having been labeled with an evil alignment - yes, alignment is questionable, but there's PROBABLY a reason for that, given that alignments are descriptive. Her methods and motivations are probably a lot less vicious and destructive.

Also Calistria has this as an anathema: "Become too consumed by love or a need for revenge"

Whereas Arazni has an edict that basically reads "be consumed by a need for revenge" (despise and never forgive those who have hurt you).

Calistria wants you to get revenge, but also wants you to have a good time and keep things in perspective. You should always get revenge, but you shouldn't let it take over your life. Arazni doesn't care about having a good time or keeping things in perspective, she just wants to hurt people.

When was Arazni power-hungry or cruel? She didn't want to become a lich queen and rule over a city of undead, she made the place stable and didn't make the undead lives of the people she hates hell there, and I do not see a difference between "despise and never forgive those who have hurt you" and "take vengeance" beyond verbosity, Calistria's priests aren't out there after a while forgiving people who hurt them and despising and never forgiving does also not mean do everything you can at all times to get retribution

I am just ignoring the "it says evil on her page so clearly she must be evil unlike calistria" part of it because that is I feel a useless part of argument especially when I believe that the only reason arazni has evil on there is because she was turned undead and undead are evil

Arazni is NOW a god, she hasn't really done anything beyond hide and maintain her privacy since becoming a god since as far as I know that happened after she got free of Geb by having her body be destroyed by the positive energy nuke Tar Baphon unleashed in tyrant's grasp, also talking about how evil she is having vengeance in her motivations and edicts, that's Calistria's whole thing and she's not evil

Deriven Firelion wrote:

In summation, the following is true:

1. There is no proof item bonuses to attack roll spells would make them overpowered.

2. We have multiple examples attack roll spell improvements not changing the value of attack roll spells...

In the past one of the game leads/designers has stated that adding a bonus to attack rolls would increase the spell DC, and make those spells over powered. I'm sure there's a way they could write it to only be to attack rolls so I'm not sure why that's been stated before.

They sure managed it with kineticist's gate attenuator and all that took was (does not apply to DCs)

If the problem is with accuracy kineticist doesn't really help, they have the same as casters except getting an item bonus to blasts and also they have a harder time hitting different saving throws

I do not see a way to mix the flavour of exemplar with the balance of exemplar and I was hoping the playtest wrap up would address it but unfortunately not, like with the flavour and inspirations given it should be a better fighter than a fighter, better barbarian than a barbarian, better archer than a ranger or fighter, better rogue than a rogue even, it feels to me like a flavour that should be on whatever the mythic track turns out to be, like using a couple of the given inspirations as examples Achilles as a mythic fighter or Hercules as a mythic barbarian

I'm thinking still Sarenrae or since it's Arazni I could see it being Zon-Kuthon with Arazni being part of how he dies

Hero Points also aren't a just combat offensive tool to be spending all over the place on trying to make spell attack spells work, there's the previously mentioned don't die option or just rerolling saving throws but also my biggest use of hero points, out of combat skill checks

I will also add since I forgot to in the last post, I am on board with trip's reading of reload and the idea of needing to regrip before you can reload which requires releasing the grip feels to me like being excessively restrictive in your possible reading of rules because you have already made up your mind that things must be as restrictive as possible

The majority of this thread was about a different topic than the one now being talked about so using what is basically "well for all this thread you have been disagreed with so you're wrong and should stop posting" I think sucks especially as one who was disagreeing with the quick alchemy stuff