Kitusser's page

Kitusser wrote:

Why are you hyperfixated on the Rogue example which was a minor part of my point?

I made a post about a play experience where I saw a non-gunslinger use a gun very effectively. You responded to tell me that that would only be the case at low level, but my player ran that character from 8 to 13 when the campaign ended, and it stayed very effective with massive critical hits that would one shot lower level enemies and significantly change the game against bosses when they happened.

My point was to say, hey, I’ve seen guns used effectively by nonslingers, because I have (also an investigator).

No I said that enemies are only getting one shot by crits at low levels. The rest of my comment was to the larger point behind what you were saying.

Again, one crit is only changing the flow of a boss fight at like low levels.

Plus you're making assumptions that aren't true, like the Rogue getting their Sneak Attack every round (which is highly unlikely with a hiding playstyle, particularly at low levels), and assuming a bow focused Rogue wouldn't build their character differently.

But like, Rogue is kind of not a good ranged weapon user. Spending 3 actions every round to get one sneak attack hit is bad damage.

Without an off guard target, the rogue’s 2nd shot with a bow is -7 compared to the hiding sniper rogue. That is a pretty huge cliff to fall off of as far as additional damage, especially as your second shot loses sneak attack damage.

I'm obviously comparing bows to guns holistically, not just on the Rogue, but aren't you making assumptions that just aren't accurate? The Rogue at this point is not gonna be able to consistently hide from the enemy it wants to be hidden from. The Rogue is a bad ranged character until you get some very specific feats. Though if I were to be playing one, it would be in a party that can easily grant me off guard, or I would pick the Mastermind subclass.

Why are you hyperfixated on the Rogue example which was a minor part of my point?

I have seen a rogue with running reload make a very effective sniper. Shoot, hide, reload and sneak. They were a touch less good at getting cries, but the sneak attack damage helped make the regular hits painful and when they did crit it was spectacular, just not as frequent.

Only one attack per turn but the sneaking away at the end made it a very frequent multiple action sink for my npcs and even if one did spot the rogue and point him out, there was usually someone off guard to shoot.

I think Sayre really hit it out of the park with PF2 gun design. Their cries are heavy enough to one shot a lot of lower level enemies and significantly change an encounter against a boss, without being easy enough to make happen that they just make everything else terrible. If you think of regular hits not as actually hitting a target in a significant body part but near misses and light grazes, the fantasy and the mechanics work pretty well.

Their crits are high enough to one shot lower level enemies at low levels. Past like level 5 this will not really happen. Low level scaling is not very good in this game.

Bow crits aren't exactly bad either, particularly with their crit spec.

But anyway, you are saying a weapon/class is good because it can crit every 3 turns maybe and change the outcome of a fight. Thing is, a regular archer can do the same thing of "significantly change a boss encounter), just with much better consistency. This is a pure DPR thing, you can just use math to determine the better damage. I'm sure somebody has done the math here and I'm fairly certain bows just come out ahead. Don't try the white room thing either, bows are much more adaptable to circumstances than guns are.

The cost of reload is not worth the extra damage you get on a crit. A bow crit really isn't that far behind a reload weapon crit (2d6+1d10+2) [14.5] vs 3d12 [19.5]). The difference is significant, but it's not so crazy that it's overcoming losing at least one action in a turn. This difference becomes less and less pronounced as you get higher level. Crit fishing builds have always been a bit of a trap option in most RPGs.

For your Rogue example, the rogue is taking defensive actions and reloading at the cost of their damage. They simply aren't going to be as big of a threat as other people at the table. Smart enemies aren't gonna be scared of the rogue spending 2 actions to make their one attack do good damage.

I have had very different experience with ranged weapons and reload weapons than others it appears.

In my experience, good range weapons have dominated encounters, but required the whole party to play to using range and not getting in each other’s way or moving fights out of the kill zone the ranged characters were trying to establish. Gunslinger crits have consistently been the most impressive hits we have seen, but maybe only because no one has played a ranged magus for more than a one off.

I mean if you build your entire party around it then it is a lot better. But then you're missing out on like half the classes and the many many benefits of having melee characters. A party with melee characters is stronger than one without in my opinion. It doesn't have much to do with ranged damage being good, and it's more about "All of us can hit you while you can't hit us."

The damage is still paltry, and spellcasters could more or less match the damage, or be only slightly behind. There are a couple ranged builds that are really strong, but it's only a couple.

Now most parties have a mix of ranged and melee, and the ranged martials just always feel bad compared to the melee in these games. Particularly at low levels.

Honestly, ranged weapons as a whole suffer a bit, especially at early levels. Reload weapons are just taking a hit on top of that because it's never been properly budgeted. Every reload weapon could get a die size increase, and they'd still be generally weaker I think.

Agreed. I genuinely think that ranged weapons are underpowered in this system. The benefits of range just aren't enough to compensate for the low damage.

Spellcasters can match ranged martial damage with focus spells and max slot blasting. Which genuinely sucks for them.

Balance for everyone's fun. If Firearms were on par with RL weapons, they would become the most common weapons, as shown by the RL world. No thanks.

Are we really acting like guns are somehow balanced in this game?

I don't think the gunslinger is bad. I think it's on the lower end of martial power, but it's still far better than other classes like the inventor or the investigator. What's really bad about gunslingers isn't the class itself, but the design behind firearms. TTRPGs seem to have a hate boner for ranged weapons that aren't bows because "huh, bows are a fantasy staple" or whatever.

All the ranged weapons that weren't slings that exist in PF2e ended up overshadowing bows in real life at some point in history, and while applying that directly to a game would be bad since all player options are supposed to be equal or at least somewhat equal against each other, I don't know why we instead live in a world where every single ranged option feels like a trap except in very specific circumstances and builds.

Sadly, I don't see Paizo making a rework of a whole weapon type at this stage of PF2e, less so when the perfect chance to have done that already happened...twice (the remaster and G&G:R; arguably Starfinder 2e too). We can only hope Pathfinder 3e does a better job with ranged weapons than every other edition before it.

Yeah it's not bad but most of the class budget goes into offsetting the downsides of a bad weapon type than anything else. It's a little funny that there are classes somehow worse than the Gunslinger despite this.

This spell is an AOE dazzle with an anti-invisibility addon, not the other way around. This spell is quite good even against enemies that can't turn invisible, against invisible enemies it's amazing.

I don't see how this spell wouldn't affect everyone inside.

snip

I just suppose I don't really understand what you consider to be competent enough as a martial. A Warpriest is basically equal or a little behind in accuracy compared to a typical martial until level 13. At low to mid tier of games it's perfectly competent at martialling with it's base kit, and has some nice feats to complement that playstyle.

I can agree that at higher levels it doesn't really seem better than a Cloistered Cleric, but for low to mid I think it's comparable, probably a little weaker.

I don't think the Warpriest is supposed to be like a replacement for playing a martial, just with a caster flavour. It's primarily still a caster, and is able to supplement that competently with martial prowess.

I personally don't really see a Fighter with a caster dedication to really be that much of a caster.

With the Alchemist thing, when I say in the dumps I generally just mean a class that is basically unplayably bad. The Alchemist is bad, but it's not so bad that you can't be a useful member to the team, unless you build it poorly. I think there is a level where hard to build counts against the class. Though I also think it's also reasonable to say that if built competently, the class is at least comparable to the other classes in the game and consider that as less of a point against the class.

Still, I really hope the class gets some errata to help it or something, but it just doesn't seem very likely.

Kitusser wrote:

Nothing remotely capable? They get the bare minimum, and they have 3 slots per level + your font. With spells you're as accurate or better than the average martial most of the time. Plus the Warpriest feats are pretty damn good.

If Warpriest is not remotely capable of martialing, then the Alchemist is in the dumps. Like it's insane to me that the Warpriest gets expert at the same level as the Alchemist.

They get the bare minimum, which I consider unacceptable. What makes martials good at being martials are the extra class features and feats that help support things. Armor and weapon proficiency are just the most basic pieces.

These are two separate claims. It can't be hitting the minimum and also be considered "not remotely capable".

The warpriest is a less capable caster than the cloistered cleric, but isn't enough better at martial pursuits to make it actually worth it IMO.

Any more capable as a martial and it's gonna be way too powerful.

Ignoring the levels at which you get access, I think fighter with cleric dedication hits the power level that I would personally want in terms of martial capability with spell casting utility.

You are undervaluing the power of the additional slot and having higher rank slots + the divine font.

You also don't even get a spellslot until level 4 on the fighter/cleric, and you wont get a focus spell either.

It seems what you're actually asking for is a pure martial with some casting capability. That's not what a warpriest is.

And yes, I (and many others) consider the Alchemist to be in the dumps. It's not a martial character.

The class is perfectly playable, a bit hard to build but not "in the dumps" bad. I don't consider it to be good outside a bomber, and some really specific stuff, but this is undervaluing the class.

Also "not a martial", what is a martial then? It's certainly got the best attack scaling for a non martial.

Warpriest gets basically nothing that makes them even remotely capable in martial combat though. Sure, they get access to better armor and weapon options than a base cleric, which isn't much. There are a few feats that can help would be martial combatants, but nothing compared to actual martial classes.

Prior to the battle harbinger, I would have told someone to play a fighter and take the cleric dedication or be a Champion. Depending on whether they wanted a tankier or more offensive character with divine power.

The battle harbinger isn't the best martial, I will agree. But it does bring stuff to the table that a Warpriest doesn't.

If I wanted moderately martial character, I would absolutely be disappointed with the warpriest doctrine.

Edit: I will say, I haven't had a chance to play Battle harbinger (and probably wont, but I'm just never inclined to play a cleric).

I guess, depending on what exactly you want I might suggest Fighter with cleric dedication.

Nothing remotely capable? They get the bare minimum, and they have 3 slots per level + your font. With spells you're as accurate or better than the average martial most of the time. Plus the Warpriest feats are pretty damn good.

If Warpriest is not remotely capable of martialing, then the Alchemist is in the dumps. Like it's insane to me that the Warpriest gets expert at the same level as the Alchemist.

pauljathome wrote:

Failed my will save so I am compelled to point out that a well built druid is most certainly NOT kind of a bad class.

I can certainly agree with you at early levels, where the Druid has focus spells on par with slot spells, while also having the defenses of a Warpriest and an incredibly versatile spell list. At levels 15+, though, the Druid's defenses are effectively the same as any other caster's, their focus spells are far behind most slot spells, and the primal list doesn't have that many spells that feel "broken" in the same way other high-rank spells of other traditions. Untamed form requires a huge amount of feat investment to offer benefits that become increasingly distant from the martial classes it tries to emulate, and without this feat investment the focus spell becomes dead weight. There is, in my opinion, room for buffs here.

I wouldn't call it bad though.

The only classes I'd call bad at this point are like Investigator, non-bomber Alchemists, Inventors and probably Psychics.

Kitusser wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Unfortunately, what you describe above is the basis for the infamous 15-minutes adventuring day that PF2 tries very strongly to avoid.

Does PF2e really try to avoid this strongly though? I thought that a strong draw of the encounter balance is that it's not dependant on an adventuring day to function, it assumes full resources.

Full Hit Points, not necessarily full resources.

No the guidelines are pretty explicitly for full resources.

Moderate : "Characters usually need to use sound tactics and manage their resources wisely to come out of a moderate-threat encounter ready to continue on and face a harder challenge without resting."

Severe : "Bad luck, poor tactics, or a lack of resources can easily turn a severe-threat encounter against the characters, and a wise group keeps the option to disengage open."

Extreme : "An extreme-threat encounter might be appropriate for a fully rested group of characters that can go all-out, for the climactic encounter at the end of an entire campaign, or for a group of veteran players using advanced tactics and teamwork."

It talks about how often a party can continue these encounters, but an Extreme encounter is still extreme if you're at full resources.

Unfortunately, what you describe above is the basis for the infamous 15-minutes adventuring day that PF2 tries very strongly to avoid.

Does PF2e really try to avoid this strongly though? I thought that a strong draw of the encounter balance is that it's not dependant on an adventuring day to function, it assumes full resources.

gesalt wrote:

I do appreciate how quickly we went from "focus spellstriking is broken" to "you're being unfair to the magus, surely it can do better than this."

“Magus doesn’t beat fighter damage even if it gets focus spell spellstrike every round, already turned on arcane cascade, and gets two free map-10 strikes cause it’s somehow recharging for free”

“Uhhh, that’s not being fair to magus, magus is better than that”

?????????

Actually yeah you two are right, I seriously don't even understand what's going on here anymore.

Why no Quietus Strikes and Draconic Barrage on the Magus ?

Honestly your example feels so strongly slanted in favor of the Fighter (and thus of your opinion) that it is actually counterproductive.

Adding the disdain of your chosen words towards those who do not agree with you, ie "whining", this certainly does not help your case IMO.

It's literally 1 damage with quietus strikes, and I'm assuming no Draconic Barrage because they have Fire Ray instead? Plus, Arcane Cascade is on so how are they fitting this into the previous turn's buff round?

I don't think Fire Ray is gonna be dealing less than Draconic Barrage here. Even if it had both, the damage is not going to be much closer, the fighter is still gonna win by a significant amount.

Sounds like you either got quite lucky rolls or were over-determined to win by having a strong party. Doesn't mean that the fights that are hard for that party won't be long.

Not entirely sure but:

I don't think it's worth us derailing this any further by arguing more when it's clear we're never going to agree ScooterScoots. The tables we play at must be completely different, because in my groups if a frontlining Fighter spent the entire first turn of any combat, especially a boss fight, not positioning themselves between the enemies and the squishies and just buffing themselves repeatedly, that would probably result in 2 or 3 of the other players having to waste a bunch of actions and resources running away and getting annoyed about it.

I don't know if I like you just saying it's a playstyle difference when it seems you are factually wrong on some matters that were pretty important to Scooter's analysis.

Yeah, custom mixed heritage, not adopted ancestry.

That doesn't have the physiological restriction, IIRC?

You pretend that this feat is some general feat. It is not. It's a feat for a fully (magical-) mechanical ancestry with a very specific lore. So, yes, it's very definite that this eye is because of their magical-mechanical nature. It's just as true as you can't get any of elven adaptability feats (if they exist) or some feats which depend on elven life span through Adopted ancestry.

Besides, I didn't include the text "as determined by the GM" for nothing. I, as a GM, desided so, there's nothing to argue about.

By this logic, literally every single feat from the automaton can't be used for the purposes of adopted ancestry. This analysis needs to be done on a feat by feat basis, based on what the feat says in it's text.

But like, to be real. The mechanised nature is so much easier to replicate in another ancestry. Magical prosthetics already exist in the game, this is basically a sidestep from that, even less so because the feat doesn't actually specify anything mechanical in it.

Also wasn't this originally about custom mixed heritage anyway?

Fighter MC Magus will cast Sure Strike and crit both the Strike and the attack spell.

Even just once per combat is quite enough for this to be OP.

So, just kill the possibility of a crit for the MC.

They are 10% more likely to crit, maybe, sure this gets wonky with sure strike, but not enough to be problematic. You need to spend a full turn to achieve this. If the monster doesn't end their turn next to the fighter, then this combo can't even happen.

If the Fighter is quickened, then it's a lot easier, but the Magus can also be quickened, and they benefit from it way more than the Fighter does over the whole combat.

I'm just not that concerned about this once per fight I suppose.

Kitusser wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Spellstrike is plenty good as is.

It should directly be a once every 2 rounds thing to nerf Starlit Span back to the other Studies' level. And put the range of spellstrike to the lowest between the Strike and the spell too.

Also nerf the MC Dedication's Spellstrike to be unable to crit succeed on the attack roll.

To be honest I don't like this. Nerfing all the melee Magi because of the ranged one being too good leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Also the entire point of Starlit Span is to spellstrike from afar, nerfing it so it conforms to the spell's range seems like it's going against the point of the subclass. I don't think the range is the issue as much as the spellstriking every round.

The issue is that the design of the Magus is very clearly meant to Spellstrike once every two rounds (see: conflux spells, arcane cascade) so either we take out the design of almost every element of the Magus except for Spellstrike and kill it or we find some way to make people suck it up and space out their Spellstrikes - I would prefer buffing conflux spell attacks and arcane cascade to make an off turn almost as good but either way.

Starlit Span is also the only hybrid study to have the special clause that it works even if the range of the spell is lower so cutting that is just reverting to norm. They don't need it, clearly.

(MC Spellstrike is fine unless battles only last 2 rounds for some reason in which case it's a your table problem)

How does that logically follow? The starlit span is the only magus that has that special clause because it's the only magus that can spellstrike with ranged attacks.

Magus isn't "meant to" spellstrike every other round. The limitations of the game and class make it so you often are spellstriking every other round, but there are methods to get around that which are obviously intended, and sometimes the circumstances just allow you to do it (like when you don't need to move to get in reach of enemies). Making it so it has a one round cooldown removes all of the tactics and teamwork that would allow it to happen. No more hasting your magus, or shoving an enemy into their reach.

The Raven Black wrote:

Also nerf the MC Dedication's Spellstrike to be unable to crit succeed on the attack roll.

Wait what kinda stray is this. Are you on the design team that did the psychic remaster or something?

Lmao, I didn't even see this part.

Kitusser wrote:

ScooterScoots wrote:

Automaton mixed ancestry makes plenty of sense. You were i.e. a human soul shoved into an automaton body. That’s literally the lore behind their creation. Makes sense that would sometimes result in the soul retaining some aspects of the ancestry it was before.

And there are plenty of adopted ancestry feats that make sense, why couldn’t a poppet have an integrated armament? Why couldn’t an elf sorcerer have an arcane eye?

Yeah, it could also just have been a partial transformation to begin with. I don't think the lore contradicts this, and it would make sense within the universe.

Yeap, in this character's case it was a kobold who was born with a failing heart. A sibling who was a clockwork surgeon of some sort operated on them and gave them an artificial clockwork heart. And has been operating on them to give them numerous clockwork augmentations, until they were old enough to operate on themselves. They are not a soul in a soul cage driving a chassis, they are a kobold with various built-in clockwork augmentations that are a part of them. As I said, a cyborg. They would fit neither the definition of an android (a biomechanical life form run on nanomachines), or an automaton (a human soul in a soul cage piloting a chassis). There is no ancestry that really supports the fantasy directly. So the answer was the obvious, "Reflavor the closest thing." And we ran with the Automaton for it, as it had the closest overlap with what clockworks were capable of. And the reason it was a kobold with an automaton heritage and not an automaton with a kobold heritage is that neither of us felt that the kobold should have the construct benefits, as they were still alive. Just the feats to represent the augmentations.

In PF1E terms, they would have been a half-construct.

Perfectly reasonable. I don't see why this would even be an issue for anyone.

The Total Package wrote:

Thanks! I really like this! Then what do you recommend for 12-20 feats?

You're welcome, glad you like it! As for higher level Feats, shroudb and I are of similar mind.

Alchemist Feats:

• 12th Level: Uncanny Bombs. Shortbow Range, cover mitigation and auto-success on concealed (for throwing Bombs, at least.) Get rid of those Alchemist Goggles; why bother for just a little Splash on a miss?

• 14th: Dip back for Extend Elixir. 2 hour Quicksilver? Yes please!

• 16th: I lean more towards Advanced Efficient Alchemy (not Expanded, Efficient, oops), because there's no room in my build for Combine Elixirs but shroudb is right: Eternal Elixir is the stronger choice even so. (Eternal + Combine is really, really strong.)

• 18th: Improbable Elixirs all the way. Fly when you need it? Advanced Alchemy Haste? Survive forever on Ration Tonics? Yeah, great Feat.

• 20th: If Core Rulebook is allowed in your campaign, yeah, Perfect Mutagen is fantastic. If not, Mega Bomb is very thematic, and very useful in the right circumstances. While Alchemical Revivication is really cool, I'm not really into a Capstone that may never get used.

As for the Free Archetype stuff: My only really "gotta Take" is Dual Onslaught from Dual Weapon Warrior at 14th. If you miss with both Dual Thrower Bombs... no you didn't! Choose which one actually hit. (Hint: go for the Create Consumable Bomb if you threw one. :) )

Dual Blitz isn't really worth it, IMHO, As you need to use Quick Alchemy to load up your hands, it isn't an action saver Feat. You can just Stride, Quick Bomber, Quick Bomber in any order instead. And for a number of reasons Flensing Strike just doesn't work with Bombs.

I am a fan of Master Spotter (Investigator Archetype 12th) as Alchemists don't get Master Perception without Canny Acumen, later. Also, Skill Mastery (Investigator Archetype...

Free Archetype can be nice for something like Witch Archetype, giving you a strong familiar for action economy, and spellcasting which certainly can't hurt. Also the Cauldron feat!

Also as an alternative to the extend line, the debilitating bomb line is also nice.

My son is playing one and it kind of depends in our experience:

- If the enemy has a weakness you can hit (and bombers can hit a LOT of weaknesses), you're going to be fine. You can easily get good persistent damage and since you can hit that weakness on a miss via splash, you can regularly trigger it multiple times a round.
- If enemies are set up in a way where you can get them with splash, this can also start to add up. It's not caster AoE damage, but it's not nothing.
- It's generally not great against single target encounters without a weakness, but you can use things like Skunk Bomb/Dread Ampoule/Bottled Lightning (and the Debilitating Bomb feat chain) to put up conditions while doing some damage, which is nice.
- If you run out of Ghost Charges or VVs in a fight against incorporeal enemies, it sucks hard because all your quick vials are nonmagical and thus double resistance applies.

In a more general sense:
- Quick Bomber is a must take feat and it makes you extremely mobile. My son's character has Medic Dedication/Doctors Visitation and it's pretty easy for him to heal someone and still make multiple attacks.
- You're still an alchemist, so you can bust out other types of alchemy as needed like numbing tonics/soothing tonics, mutagens, and buff elixirs for the situation. This is very much a "get a big recipie book and make stuff for your party for maximum benefit" class. It can be really clutch when facing things like high level diseases, because the major antiplague is a big gain over your regular equipment and lasts all day.

If your goal is to do pure maximum DPS, it's not really a good class. But it can deliver decent damage while also being able to pull out all kinds of useful items that would cost a LOT of gold to stock, and there's definitely value there.

I haven't run the math but at level 11-20 with all the right feats (Quick Bomber, Sticky Bombs, Expanded Splash) the damage seems fairly good between the high persistent and high splash. High Splash means you're doing 10+ damage on a miss, which must do a lot for damage, even on 3rd action attacks.

Automaton mixed ancestry makes plenty of sense. You were i.e. a human soul shoved into an automaton body. That’s literally the lore behind their creation. Makes sense that would sometimes result in the soul retaining some aspects of the ancestry it was before.

And there are plenty of adopted ancestry feats that make sense, why couldn’t a poppet have an integrated armament? Why couldn’t an elf sorcerer have an arcane eye?

Yeah, it could also just have been a partial transformation to begin with. I don't think the lore contradicts this, and it would make sense within the universe.

Spellstrike is plenty good as is.

It should directly be a once every 2 rounds thing to nerf Starlit Span back to the other Studies' level. And put the range of spellstrike to the lowest between the Strike and the spell too.

Also nerf the MC Dedication's Spellstrike to be unable to crit succeed on the attack roll.

To be honest I don't like this. Nerfing all the melee Magi because of the ranged one being too good leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Also the entire point of Starlit Span is to spellstrike from afar, nerfing it so it conforms to the spell's range seems like it's going against the point of the subclass. I don't think the range is the issue as much as the spellstriking every round.

Using foreknowledge to gain an advantage is all well and gold, but if the threat is actually impossible without foreknowledge, then it probably needs more time in the oven.

On posts like this I always see people defend the design as long as there is one potential way to counter it through an item or spell. I feel like this logic just leads to there being basically no ability that could be problematic as long as there exists one solution in the rules.

SuperParkourio wrote:

Using foreknowledge to gain an advantage is all well and gold, but if the threat is actually impossible without foreknowledge, then it probably needs more time in the oven.

Well then, really any creature that can burrow and take other creatures with them probably needs "more time in the oven".

As do creatures that can pick someone up while flying (if they have a fast movement speed) because they could pick them up, fly up high, and drop them. Potentially before the opponent can do much. Although there are a lot of common solutions to reducing/negating fall damage so this one isn't as bad. But if you don't know you need it in advance, you could be pretty screwed.

Depends on the level of threat but if it's in instakill territory then yes.

Does this checkbox counterplay actually add anything interesting to these fights? Like it's either you have the counterplay or you don't, and if you don't you die. If you don't have the system knowledge you might not even know how to get that counterplay, so it turns into searching Archives of Nethys for an item or spell that helps you beat the monster. It's just not that interesting.

The counterplay is having some vital earth pellets (they’re cheap, 30gp each, should always have them on you by this level)

This will absolutely murder any party that doesn’t habitually carry vital earth though. Brutal game knowledge check.

To be fair, I don't think these knowledge checks are particularly interesting or healthy for the game.

You can basically justify any ability against the players as long as there is one item, feature, or spell in the game that lets you counter it.

The word "Prop" bothers me more than "adrenaline," but in the long run, "adrenaline" should be reserved for an Athlete class.

Neither Momentum nor Edge give the sense of daring that should be in a daredevil. How about "Thrill" or "Excitement"?

"Risk" would be the simplest word. Risky actions create Risk.

I don't think I hate "Thrill", it has the implication of risk while keeping the excitement and movement aspect of "adrenaline" or "momentum".

Quote:

Yes but the question here is "why are people always recommending this?"

Same reason it's so easy to recommend champ archetype on a melee character. It is, in many cases, a direct upgrade and better than whatever your class chassis or feats would give you. Same reason a lot of archetypes are recommended, they provide the class something it lacks that improves it over the things the class offers natively.

Champ with its armor, focus spell(s) and good reaction. Gunslinger to shore up ranged damage with free ammo and a good ranged reaction. Basically anything on casters because so many of their class feats are terrible. Any of the archetypes that boost saves or perception. There's not a class in this game (aside from maybe kineticist) that isn't better off with an archetype or two.

Just so happens that magus hits every checkbox. Archetyping provides better armor, better focus spells, save boost, good reactions, etc, etc, etc.

Yes but it's not entirely that it's an upgrade to your character. I think it's a bit of that and the fact that this is the way people want to play the class. It is by far the most popular suggestion for people playing the class, it's likely not entirely based on power.

Kitusser wrote:

Yes but the question here is "why are people always recommending this?"

Since you asked: "Because that's the way the PF1e magus worked (spam Spellstrikes for damage)." Just do the same action sequence every round without engaging in the tactical design of PF2e.

I seriously do not think people were recommending Psychic MC because PF1e Magus spammed spellstrikes.

I have explained myself countless times for month.

I think it's abusing the mechanic because it's litteraly being used (or advertised at least) constantly by the community as a fix on how to play the class.

And then any discussion about redesign gets drowned by a shieldwall of people not wanting it to be touched because it's so strong (arguably).

Yes, again, it is due to the built in limitation of the class AND the lack of attack spells to use.
I'm not denying it.

I'm saying that focusing on those as the way to "fix" the class issues is a dead end. The class wasn't designed to rely on focus spells for spellstrike, it was a useful option that had solid tradeoff at the time the class was designed (previous refocus rules) but now it's become an actual issue in term of game design imo.

Best in slot etc etc etc even if untrue, that's the way the community sees it.

I challenge you to check any forum thread of subreddit post asking advice about Magus or even just talking about it and not finding at least one person saying to just pick up a focus spell from a multiclass or archetype 90% of the time.

Yes but the question here is "why are people always recommending this?"

I think it's genuinely because that's what they want out of the class, they want to do high damage spellstrikes every combat. Perhaps it's better to move the class in the direction people want it to be moved in.

The class might not have been designed with using focus spells to spellstrike in mind, but that doesn't mean it needs to stay that way. I think Paizo was aware of this interaction but they just thought the investment was high enough that it didn't matter, and they just didn't consider Psychic's interaction with Magus when they released Psychic.

I feel the existence of a Shifter class, and specifically a martial Shifter class, could be a good reason to revisit the Untamed Order Druid and emphasize the caster aspects: it's not just that the Druid being a full caster limits their ability to fight like a full martial, the fact that they get so many spell slots but can't use them while polymorphed is also a point of anti-synergy that could potentially be massaged. I have a soft spot for World of Warcraft's Druid class and how they can cast different spells while shapeshifted based on their spec, and I think that's a bit of gameplay worth porting to PF2e's Druid class in some form, even if it means applying an action cost in a similar vein to the Barbarian's Moment of Clarity feat. This would allow players to find that particular niche on a class already built with battle forms and full spellcasting, and remove the need for a future Shifter class to fulfil that same consideration. A Shifter with a base power budget fully dedicated to shapeshifting could, in my opinion, achieve a lot that an Untamed Druid can't be allowed to do, or at least not as well, just as an Untamed Druid in my opinion could potentially be allowed to blend spellcasting and battle forms in a way other classes can't to the same extent. The feral linguist catalyst already proves that this is allowed in very limited amounts, and this could be limited less on the Druid.

I was thinking that maybe each form would have a small list of spells that they could cast while in their battle forms. The issue I see though is the conflict with you needing to prepare the spells ahead of time.

Kalaam wrote:

I haven't said attack spells are ubiquitous, I said the abuse of focus spells for it have become ubiquitous with the class within the discussions of it in the community.

Right, but this is the problem I'm pointing out: what you are continually framing as "abuse" is a natural consequence of a class being designed to rely heavily on attack spells, while being denied an evergreen source of them besides cantrips within their class. Of course players are going to archetype for this, because it makes the class feel so much better to play, plus it lets them prepare actual utility into their spell slots for more diversity.

You keep saying you don't want to repeat yourself, but you have yet to actually explain why this use of focus attack spells is abuse. Why is it bad for the Magus to use focus attack spells? Because clearly it's not harming their diversity when their usage of slot spells often otherwise often boils down to shocking grasp and polar ray, two legacy spells that have since been replaced with save spells. It's not harming their balance when they're still middle-of-the-pack when using those spells, and when the one overpowered subclass is overpowered regardless of whether or not they're using focus attack spells. I get being attached to a solution, but making it all about everything but more satisfying Spellstrikes while culling the thing that makes Spellstrike more satisfying to so many players is what comes across to me as sidestepping the design issue at hand.

What I also don't get is this refusal to just give players what they so clearly want, because this is something Paizo have incorporated already to the betterment of the game. In PF1e, players were abusing Wands of Cure Light Wounds to recover from encounters without needing to expend spell slots, so Paizo made Medicine really good at healing out of combat without a resource cost in 2e. People kept taking Dangerous Sorcery on the Sorcerer, so Paizo straight-up made it baseline to the...

Yeah, when I first started playing PF2e, Magus was the first class I played. The draw for me was Spellstrike and using powerful spells with the feature. I picked Shocking Grasp, and always had at least one prepared. It was fun to do this, fun to blend magic and sword, so I naturally wanted to do it more often. I eventually picked up the Psychic Dedication so I could do this every fight without cantrips.

I love this discussion but I've come to understand that while we are playing the same game, some of us play it very differently. That difference definitely colors how you see the class. I've played several Magi, in campaigns with fighter's, barbarians and full casters. The biggest issue that I've experienced is the action economy. I've never felt I didn't contribute my share or more. Never really felt outshined by fighters or barbarians doing damage or landing spells with the casters. I'd love for AC to be easier to get into and some other ways to recharge spellstrike.

I think most people here agree that the Magus isn't underpowered, just that it has some pretty glaring issues that could be improved to make the class better to play for most people.

Key question for the Shifter martial IMO is What do you do when you're NOT Shifted?

An Untamed Druid falls back on their casting.

A martial MC Untamed Druid falls back on their feats and class features.

I feel the Shifter would be in a situation similar to the not-Raging Barbarian.

Yeah probably. Though I think shifting should be just as easy to do/have up as Rage is. If not easier.

Kitusser wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think the goal is that a battle form gets you 90% of the melee power of a martial with far, far less investment. You can be a druid that ignores strength but turn into a gorilla that still hits just as hard.

The change I'd personally like would to to make Untamed Form a 1-action spell. It feels like right now it just takes a bit too long to get started in combat if you decide to brawl it out, compared to slinging spells. Making it 1-action would allow you to transform, move and strike in one turn.

But it does not get you 90% of the power. It still falls behind dedicated martials in AC, damage and attack value. A few points in each from mid level for just a simple strike ie about 30-50% off there. Then it falls down from the lack of maneuvers and other abilities martials get. One of the major points of PF2 was to stop prebuffing - it costs you actions - so while you have magic options because of the action economy they aren't really that much of a benefit.

When you compare it to just picking up a weapon and hitting with it something which costs you no class resources - note that the druid feats want you to have strength anyway. All you really gain are some special senses , and movement - which you can get from a few items - and reach.

It is a generalist option. It is OK ish. But it is never great. It does not feel good enough.

Then there are all the polymorph rule problems which have been around from the very start. These need to be fixed.

I always struggle to find a moment to actually use battleforms spells outside of flavor reasons. It always seems like there is another spell I can cast and just be more effective. Most parties already have a frontline, it's not like it needs more. It's fairly hard to judge when to use these spells for me.

the problem your missing is you would be stronger with boosting the allready strong orders instead of trying to collect all orders like they are pokemon. dedicated focus to...

Maybe allowing them to cast certain spells while in battleform would be good. Or lowering the level of the feat that just blanket lets you do it.

Perhaps each feat that gives you additional battleforms also gives a small selection of spells you can cast while in the form? Likely unnecessary at low levels, but past like level 7 it could start working this way.

On the contrary, if there were more spells like polar ray spread out amongst the ranks (so like more briny bolt spells with a fair bit of damage and a decent effect) than top rank -1 or 2 scrolls are very reasonable, can easily be integrated with striker’s scroll, and would add a lot of endurance to the class. The problem is there are just not enough different spells to make this more than just a one trick pony where you use basically the same spell for 10+ levels at a time.

Though this does not matter when we are talking about increased spell DCs.

I didn't mean that magus shouldn't get legendary heavy armor. I was answering to the comment above saying that heavy armor isn't a protected niche as an example relative to legendary spell DC.

I was not talking about legendary armour proficiency.

Heavy armor isn't, legendary heavy armor is.

A legendary DC magus would only need scrolls, wands or archetypes to use a DC that's often equal too or lower by 1 to a full caster, which being a more power direct damage dealer and having good martial abilities.
It'd kind of have the best of both worlds with the only drawback being a lack of spellslots. Most of the benefits of being a full caster would be cheapened by that.

That the magus' DC is improved somewhat when they do "their" thing is a good idea to expand the amount of spells they can use with spellstrike for example, but for all their spells to have a legendary DC at the rate of a wizard feels cheap to me.

Legendary DC only comes up at level 19, where the Magus would be guaranteed to be behind casters. -1 at 19, then -2 at 20 unless they sacrifice their attacking stat.

It's not the best of both worlds when they get like 4 spellslots to take advantage of it. Scrolls and wands are not a replacement for actual spellslots, more so when you're a magus with already cooked action economy and might just have full hands.

Archetypes cost class feats, so they aren't exactly free.

I dont think a magus should have the ability to cast a spell at legendary proficiency at endgame then strike with master proficiency in the same turn...magus can get up to rank 9 spells. Classes picking a martial or caster lane is one of the pillars for balance and niche protection in the game; animist cheats this but even that cheese can't be both on the same turn

Similarly, heavy armor is another niche that's protected unless you invest.

Is it really that big of a deal with their limited spellslots and their lower casting stat?

This would likely come around at level 19, so it's only for the last two levels of the game, it only works for like 4 spellslots, and your casting stat is gonna be either +5 or +6, so you're either gonna be 2 behind casters, or 1 behind casters and 1 behind martials.

Not sure what this "is a niche that's protected" thing means exactly. It's not like heavy armour is that protected of a niche.

Kitusser wrote:

Also I'm not sure this class is encouraging good things anyway. I feel like this class pushes GMs into throwing single boss encounters at the PCs which I don't think is a good thing to encourage. These encounters are the weakest types of encounters in PF2e.

While I think mark quarry is in an awkward spot I think this issue is being overstated a bit. You don't need a single boss enemy, Quarry works on anything your level or higher.

On The Hunt also gives you really good tempo against mooks (at least at low levels), which makes them better in multitarget scenarios than something like a Ranger or Thaumaturge that has to keep reapplying their gimmick.

It's not necessary but it certainly encourages it. Generally when a big bad enemy is being built up, it's usually going to be a set piece encounter, which many GMs like to do as solo boss encounters. This ability encourages that loop of building up a big scary guy ahead of time and then throwing your players at it.

Yeah, teamwork grows exponentially more difficult with party size. Hence I'd often use battles with two fronts at my larger tables. If not outright coming down different corridors or opening a second door, a simple pillar, table, or other obstacle can naturally separate the enemies' focus, prevent overwhelming PC #1.

The inability to split focus makes a singular threat sometimes too threatening. So I'd avoid them or maybe warn the PCs so they know how much more they'll have to coordinate to address this enemy. Yet a singular enemy is also vulnerable; losing an action becomes more severe, even if only by making it come to you at first, or scattering. Lots of debuffs work for a round on a save, and a round's a lot vs. a boss, i.e. Slow or Fear. Force Barrage is also your friend vs. above-level defenses (unless they're notably chunky, like a troll or zombie, but they typically have lower AC too.)

(I'm reminded of a spooky Starfinder scenario where our random team was a whole bunch of Ysoki ranged attackers and one Android, also ranged. No tanks, no in-combat healing, so we'd take turns opening doors with the rest of the party hiding far away and scattered. The door-opener would flee ASAP as would whomever the enemy threatened later. Bunch of scurrying mice, but it was so, so effective.)

Yeah, crowd control and force multipliers are crazy good with high player parties. Especially on those low enemy number encounters like you said.

I regularly run seven-player campaigns. I once tried an eight-player campaign, but my wife, who was a player, had to start serving as assistant GM in order to keep the game moving smoothly.

A campaign with a large party will take more time for equivalent encounters. Where a four-player party would fight four weak opponents, the seven-player party would fight seven of the same opponents to make the encounter feel the same. And that simply takes longer. I play online via Roll20 and I can hear (and see my wife in the same room) the players engaged in other activities while waiting for their turn. This would be bad among inexperienced players, who might stop listening and lose track of events, but my players listen while multitasking and jump in immediately when their turn comes up.

Finoan is right about solo boss fights. A single level+3 creature is a reasonable Severe-Threat encounter in a four-player game. A single level+4 creature might seem like a reasonable Severe-Threat encounter against a six-player party, but the risk is higher. The six-member party is 50% stronger than a four-member party, but each player character is individually just as weak. A solo boss's attack are concentrated, focused on a single PC, and that PC is more likely to go down. Using two level+2 bosses rather than a single level+4 boss is less likely to kill a PC.

I mentioned combat threat: trivial, low, moderate, severe, and extreme. These are covered on page 75 of the GM Core under Combat Threats in Chapter 2, Building Games. The GM will have to learn to adjust the XP Budget of the combat encounter according to the size of the party. Back in 2023 I started a thread on that topic and related topics: Encounter Balance: The Math and the Monsters.

One aspect of a game club with five to nine regular players is that players will miss the game sessions due to real life. Thus,...

This is something I noticed even in a 6 person party. A couple people tend to take the brunt of all the attacks, so the increased difficulty is concentrated on a few of the party members (usually the frontliners), even in encounters with reasonable enemy levels. It's easy to make one minor mistake that drops you to 5hp.

In encounters with a PL+4 enemy, or multiple PL+3 enemies, the increased difficulty is basically guaranteed to be focused on those few players. It's just not fun for both the people getting focused, and the healers. Throw in something like Reactive Strike on an enemy with Reach and it's really unfun.

Yeah, like, if you have a classic dungeon and the ONLY creature you're actually fully aware of is the boss monster at the end, so you've lost access to a major class feature and possibly various feats for the vast majority of the dungeon. Also, it makes feats like Instant Enmity and Endless Enmity mandatory when it's frankly, just not a fun feat but a hurdle you have to jump just to more easily access a base feature. Oh, and you don't even get trophies from the targets of those feats!

On the other hand, if they made Mark Quarry a single action, the class could have SO MUCH flow and dynamism between fights:
Mark Quarry > Gain Buffs Against Quarry > Focus Quarry > Kill Quarry > Claim Trophy > Reinforce Arsenal > Repeat

You have a reliable rotation that also allows change up between fights and gives you a consistent role of pack-leader/boss killer. I'm flabbergasted how this was completely missed!

This also is not the fault of a GM, just wanna say this before anyone says it. A GM shouldn't be forced into running a game in a certain style just for a class to work.

Also I'm not sure this class is encouraging good things anyway. I feel like this class pushes GMs into throwing single boss encounters at the PCs which I don't think is a good thing to encourage. These encounters are the weakest types of encounters in PF2e.

John R. wrote:

I think Mark Quarry should be 1 action but have a 10 minute cooldown and they can keep the flavor of "you've spent at least 10 minutes researching this creature" but in the background, just like Prescient Planner.

I think this is a design philosophy for actions that Paizo could stand to apply a lot more, and I think it would help Mark Quarry significantly. Not every adventure allows for preparation and, quite frankly, roleplaying overlong preparations in absence of concrete information can slow games down to a crawl really easily, so I'd rather there were more flashback mechanics where the flavor text just goes: "yeah, turns out you did prepare for this eventuality, and you're putting that in action now."

The one risk I see is that the more we make Mark Quarry easier to use, the more it just reverts back to Hunt Prey. I suppose Paizo could just bite that bullet and accept the comparisons to the Ranger, but it would make the classes even more samey.

And even when you get "preparation", this feature is still going to struggle. Because you likely will only get info on one or two encounters, and it's likely going to be the most difficult one. So for all those other encounters you won't get to use your feature. Even then it's possible it wont work due to the higher level than you thing.

It's the same issue prepared casters have but even worse. In theory prep makes them better but in practise it's not really that amazing.

I am the GM for a Junior College game club. Can you please share any tips you have for working with large parties (5-9)? Any advice, guidance, or hero points you can throw my way will be greatly appreciated.

Try to make an effort to get your players to learn the game and their character sheets. Turns will be much faster and the game more enjoyable.

Be careful on encounter design, the running few but strong enemies tends to not be fun even if it's technically "balanced" exacerbated at low levels (though I just wouldn't do it at low levels as I'd say it's not balanced). I genuinely wouldn't recommend putting more than one +3/4 enemy, find some other way to increase the difficulty. That can be from favourable environmental conditions, favourable terrain, hazards, or just minions.

lets be clear to those who claim untamed shouldn't be competitive. your not accounting for the feat cost if you put every feat into untamed you come up short.

not to mention the action cost of shifting your first turn is down the drain. and you are barred from spellcasting.
I cant take anyone who thinks it should be weak with all those considerations seriously as someone who cares about balance. its actually unbalanced in how weak it is . there is no reason it should be as weak as it is.

The issue is that you're a full spellcaster and that already holds a lot of power. The feats are mostly about versatility. Class choice is still more of an investment than feat choices.

Another point is niche protection, and not wanting spellcasters to step on the toes of martials. I feel the best way to make this work is to just have a class focused on it like everyone else is saying, not to make the already powerful druid also closer in striking power to a martial.