Kitusser's page

I mostly agree with you.

To the people arguing that it isn't taking away caster items most of the time. It actually is, because the caster gold is reduced to compensate for the free fundamental runes, so even in the best case scenario it's still flawed.

Fundamental runes on weapons are just comparatively less useful on a caster than a martial, and casters would rather be spending that gold on other items most of the time anyway.

I'm of the mind that ABP should be the default. I don't see a good argument for having gold taxes for specific items exist for the game to be playable. It's just not interesting, I see no reason for it. You can easily create interesting magic items that aren't mandatory math boosts. The mandatory math boosts just feel like a sacred cow that just makes the game worse.

SIZE UP allows you to spend 10 minutes researching a specific individual on the infosphere. So you are already using a computer or comm unit to do so even if you are not rolling a computer check.

DIGITAL DIVERSION lets you Create a Diversion by using Computers instead of Deception on a target carrying, wearing, or wielding a tech item.

Having info on your target is always helpful no matter how you create the diversion. Answering your cell phone while driving is such a dangerous distraction it is illegal in many places. The real internet and social media are one of the biggest sources of deception and distraction. So I feel that SIZE UP should apply to DIGITAL DIVERSION

This could be done with simple rewording;

DIGITAL DIVERSION lets you Create a Diversion by using Size Up and using Computers instead of Deception on a target carrying, wearing, or wielding a tech item.

This doesn't change the fact that you want CHA then DEX over any other stat on an envoy, meaning you're stretched thin for ability boosts and will basically always have a better deception unless you intentionally try not to.

The game is pretty balanced at high levels so that shouldn't be a concern.

Every class has something to look forward to at high levels, but casters probably are the most engaging, but they do have a more painful early game (not to say they are "bad" at early game).

The most "front loaded" classes are probably classes like Magus or Summoner, which have spellcasting on top of good martial ability, but this should even out at like level 4-5. Fighter is also probably another frontloaded class due to being the only class who gets reactive strike (Attack of Opportunity) at level 1. But it's honestly not that bad and not too noticeable.

Casters are more complex, but I wouldn't discourage players from playing it. You should be versatile with your spell choice, and probably focus more on combat spells, especially at low levels. At higher levels you can use your lower level spell slots for utility with no real problems. Another thing I'd recommend is for your casters to have a non-situational focus spell, as they really help out with attrition. Usually a focus spell that deals damage is going to be fine. Lastly make sure to read your abilities and spells.

Low level play is fun, but the players shouldn't be fighting enemies that are 3 or 4 levels above the party until like level 5 or 6. Mostly due to the low HP of the players.

The game probably is way more fun at high levels, due to all the fun abilities the players get, and how they're able to interact with more elements of the system.

This Hybrid Study seems pretty good overall, but I'm confused as to why the Conflux Spell has the Manipulate trait, and partly with its 4th level feat.

During Arcane Cascade, this Hybrid Study ignores reactions when it uses Fly, Leap, High Jump, or Long Jump. This should synergise with the Conflux Spell which allows you to Fly up to your speed and make a Strike, but the spell has the manipulate trait which seems like anti-synergy. Usually when you Spellstrike, you're ending your turn next to an enemy, meaning that you're likely going to trigger a reaction by casting it, making that part of the Arcane Cascade Stance worthless. Usually you can avoid triggering the reactions from enemies who you aren't right next to, especially when you aren't flying.

Secondly, it's 4th level Feat allows you to take a reaction to Leap, High Jump, or Long Jump immediately after hitting a target with a Spellstrike. The movement doesn't trigger reactions from the target. The issue here is that (at least at low to mid levels when enemies usually only have one reaction for Reactive Strike) you've already triggered their reaction with your Spellstrike which makes that whole part of the feat pointless.

Not to say that this Hybrid Study is bad, far from it, it is arguably better than Laughing Shadow. They have incredible mobility through their Conflux Spell and that 4th level feat.

Overall, while the Hybrid Study is great, it seems to have some anti-synergy within it's kit due to the Manipulate trait on both Spellstrike and it's Conflux Spell.

Kitusser wrote:

Your reading of the rules is incredibly draconian and would not be how a reasonable person interprets the rules.

Only if you ignore part of the rules: "A shield bash is not actually a weapon, but a maneuver in which you thrust or swing your shield to hit your foe with an impromptu attack." It quite EXPLICITLY states "A shield bash is not actually a weapon". IMO, It's doing some high grade mental gymnastics to say that statement actually means it IS a weapon by pointing to a section that says you use it for "shields that weren’t designed to be used as weapons".

A shield bash is treated as a weapon when you make an attack, I seriously don't see why a reasonable GM wouldn't just treat it as a weapon normally.

Why would I? Neither of those were part of the statement I replied to, As they are martial weapon and MY POINT was that in pre-remaster, a rogue only had simple weapons, rapier, sap, shortbow, and shortsword so they are moot and irrelevant.

If you were talking about the Rogue in this instance, you simply would've just said that about shield bash instead of talking about whether it even counts as a weapon. You also wouldn't of used the example of double slice, nor of twin parry, as these are not Rogue feats. It's clear that you're defending the item post-remaster with your arguments.

You don't want to respond to it because it makes your whole point about shield bash moot. Shield bash is treated as a martial weapon during attacks by your reading.

Out of context, sure if you ignoring the part where i explain it: "It's niche really vanished though once Rogue got martial weapon proficiency, as before the nightstick was the only parry weapon they could get [and could sneak attack with]. Now they can get a Main-gauche for Disarm and Versatile S instead of the Non-lethal of the nightstick." I can't see how you can't understand how this refers to the first sentence.

If it referred to the first sentence, why would you put it in a separate paragraph? And why would you use twin parry and double slice as examples? Why wouldn't you say that Rogue couldn't've used shield bash or fist for sneak attacks in the first place?

Look it seems like I just misunderstood here, but can't you see why?

Like even in this comment you say:

I replied to "there is no reason to use this over a Fist or a Shield" and there are in fact reason to do so, especially in pre-remaster:

Which implies this weapon still is useful post-remaster.

Kitusser wrote:

So we have one section of the rules calling it a weapon, and another saying the opposite.

Incorrect: from the other section, "The shield bash is an option only for shields that weren’t designed to be used as weapons." It counts as a weapon ONLY for attacks: this means you don't qualify as wielding a weapon for it for prerequisites. There is a reason you can't put weapon runes on a shield and that's because it isn't a weapon. Note the difference between the shield and improvised weapons for instance: "Improvised weapons are simple weapons" vs "A shield can be used as a martial weapon for attacks" and "A shield bash is not actually a weapon". If a shield is a weapon, they sure could have stated it like improvised weapons and improvised weapons aren't even in the weapon list,...

Kitusser wrote:

It is also literally listed under the martial melee weapons tab

Fist is literally listed on the weapon list... Is it a weapon too?

Kitusser wrote:

You understand the the game is post-remaster, not pre-remaster, right?

Do you understand when someone explicitly states they are talking about the pre-remaster, they just might be talking about the pre-remaster?

Kitusser wrote:

You mention there are "some feats" but don't showcase a single example that matters, and don't demonstrate how the nightstick wouldn't be better replaced by another weapon.

Agree to disagree, as you don't seem to comprehend the difference between pre and post remaster.

Kitusser wrote:

Sorry if I misunderstood you putting yourself in opposition of my comment as a defense of the nightstick.

That's the thing though. I don't think I ever put myself in opposition to your comments. All i stated was that it did have a niche use pre-remaster: full stop. I even said that niche vanished with the remaster... I honestly don't understand the pushback on those comments.

Unarmed strikes explicitly state this "Unarmed attacks can belong to a weapon group (page 280), and they might have weapon traits (page 282). However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so." There is no contradiction in the rules here. Shield bash like you quoted says that it can be used as a martial weapon for attack, but it does not say it "only" can be used that way. That's a contradiction.

Your reading of the rules is incredibly draconian and would not be how a reasonable person interprets the rules. There is no logical or balance reason why a shield bash shouldn't count as a weapon, while a table leg would.

Nevertheless, like I've stated twice now, and you've failed to acknowledge both times, there is something called a shield boss, and shield spikes. Which definitely both count as weapons.

I'm really not sure why you respond to my comment saying "It's a simple 1 handed Parry weapon. There are some feats, like Twin Parry, that do more when using Parry weapons and neither fist or shield qualify as weapons." This is not talking about the pre-remaster state of the game.

When I say "This weapon is basically pointless" and you respond saying "There are feats which can only be used with a weapon like this". That is quite clearly a counter-response to my claim.

Part of the problem in my opinion is that Acts of Leadership kick in really late: if these were 1st-level additional actions you could do to trigger Lead By Example on your directives, the Envoy would have a lot more diversity to their actions and would have more reason to invest in their leadership skill, but as a 6th-level feature, that's way past the point where you're meant to be laying the foundation to your playstyle.

As I've been playtesting the Envoy, I've also been realizing that there are quite a lot of different factors behind their action economy being so rote: directives need to be activated every turn, but also many Lead by Example actions only make sense if you use those specifically, rather than other Acts of Leadership (for instance, attacking a target during Get 'Em! for a damage bonus, which wouldn't apply to most skill checks). For this reason, I'd want to suggest a slightly different implementation from what's suggested in the OP:

Make directives into stances, so that you only need to spend one action at most across several turns, unless you want to switch directives. This would already free up the Envoy's action economy significantly.

Rework Lead by Example so that it triggers immediately from an act of leadership, and grants a benefit that works no matter which action you use. For instance, using an act of leadership with Get 'Em! could give you a bonus to your check or DC if you direct it against the designated target.

Have each directive, as well as each leadership style, give you a stable of acts of leadership that all trigger Lead By Example at level 1. Either this should entail pruning actions that can be turned into free actions, like Recall Knowledge, or stipulating that you can only Lead by Example by spending at least one action on your act of leadership.

And with this, your Envoy would immediately be able to start doing many different things and triggering their directive through various options, with far less constraints on their action economy each turn...

Why do directives need to be a stance? That just makes you only able to use one at a given time. Some of them should be a stance, but I think most of them shouldn't.

Kitusser wrote:

Shield bash quite literally counts as a weapon (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2180&Redirected=1#:~:text=A%20shie ld%20can%20be%20used,have%20runes%20added%20to%20it.). And you can upgrade it to a boss or spikes if you want runes.

Shield Bash, Player Core pg. 278

"A shield bash is not actually a weapon, but a maneuver in which you thrust or swing your shield to hit your foe with an impromptu attack."

So NO, it's NOT a weapon.

Kitusser wrote:

You're not making a good case for the nightstick.

When was I making a case that it was a good weapon? I said it had a very small niche pre-remaster. Then you asked why pick it instead of a shield or unarmed attack and I answered...

Kitusser wrote:

And in the cases that you want to have an off hand finesse weapon, you can just use an exquisite sword cane, or one of the advanced weapons.

You 100% MISSED THE POINT. Pre-remaster, rogues only had simple weapons and a small set of martial weapons. They couldn't use an exquisite sword cane, or shield bashes, or shield bosses or shield spikes or one of the advanced weapons but they COULD use a nightstick, hence why they might pick it PRE-REMASTER.

Kitusser wrote:

The bonus to Twin Parry is that the AC bonus becomes identical to what you'd get from raising a shield, instead of being inferior to it. Any given character would need some other thing to get an actual advantage from it, whether that is from the weapons other traits (doesn't apply to the night stick, since it's identical to a Fist attack), or from some other synergistic two-weapon fighting feat.

I mentioned there were "some feats". I didn't think I needed an extensive list and I didn't think it took a rocket surgeon to figure it out. For instance, Twin Parry and Double Slice are both involved in 2 weapon fighting and if you're using 2 weapons to parry, it's not a big leap to think you MIGHT want to attack with both of them and the feat for that...

So we have one section of the rules calling it a weapon, and another saying the opposite. It is also literally listed under the martial melee weapons tab, I'm going to go with it being a weapon, because for all intents and purposes it is a weapon. Shield Boss and Shield Spikes are definitely a weapon though, not sure why you ignored that.

You understand the the game is post-remaster, not pre-remaster, right?

You mention there are "some feats" but don't showcase a single example that matters, and don't demonstrate how the nightstick wouldn't be better replaced by another weapon.

Sorry if I misunderstood you putting yourself in opposition of my comment as a defense of the nightstick.

Kitusser wrote:

graystone wrote:

Kitusser wrote:

Qaianna wrote:

In the time spent playing, how often do you see players inte tnionally taking 1d4 damage weapons and using them? And how often are they OK with this? I’m trying to get past the feels-bad of d4 things on lighter martials, or wondering if I should cheese up to d6 stuff anytime able. (Main goal at the moment is a swashgrappler.)

On this point, the Nightstick is an absolutely terrible weapon, there is no reason to use this over a Fist or a Shield.

It's a simple 1 handed Parry weapon. There are some feats, like Twin Parry, that do more when using Parry weapons and neither fist or shield qualify as weapons.

It's niche really vanished though once Rogue got martial weapon proficiency, as before the nightstick was the only parry weapon they could get [and could sneak attack with]. Now they can get a Main-gauche for Disarm and Versatile S instead of the Non-lethal of the nightstick.

Aren't you able to unarmed strike when your hands are full? Why not just have a shield and just make unarmed strikes?

I think I already explained it... Twin Parry, for instance, REQUIRES 2 weapons and gets a bonus when one has parry. A shield bash isn't a weapon. A fist, isn't a weapon. Or Double Slice, where it REQUIRES 2 melee weapons [and preferably one being agile] and neither a shield or a fist are weapons. You seem to be missing the fact that the options you suggest aren't weapons and that matters.

Ah yes, Twin Parry to get a +2 circumstance bonus to AC. I wonder what a one handed shield can do.

Shield bash quite literally counts as a weapon (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2180&Redirected=1#:~:text=A%20shie ld%20can%20be%20used,have%20runes%20added%20to%20it.). And you can upgrade it to a boss or spikes if you want runes.

And in the cases that you want to have an off hand finesse weapon, you can just use an exquisite sword cane, or one of the advanced weapons.

You're not making a good case for the nightstick.

Kitusser wrote:

Qaianna wrote:

In the time spent playing, how often do you see players inte tnionally taking 1d4 damage weapons and using them? And how often are they OK with this? I’m trying to get past the feels-bad of d4 things on lighter martials, or wondering if I should cheese up to d6 stuff anytime able. (Main goal at the moment is a swashgrappler.)

On this point, the Nightstick is an absolutely terrible weapon, there is no reason to use this over a Fist or a Shield.

It's a simple 1 handed Parry weapon. There are some feats, like Twin Parry, that do more when using Parry weapons and neither fist or shield qualify as weapons.

It's niche really vanished though once Rogue got martial weapon proficiency, as before the nightstick was the only parry weapon they could get [and could sneak attack with]. Now they can get a Main-gauche for Disarm and Versatile S instead of the Non-lethal of the nightstick.

Aren't you able to unarmed strike when your hands are full? Why not just have a shield and just make unarmed strikes?

In the time spent playing, how often do you see players inte tnionally taking 1d4 damage weapons and using them? And how often are they OK with this? I’m trying to get past the feels-bad of d4 things on lighter martials, or wondering if I should cheese up to d6 stuff anytime able. (Main goal at the moment is a swashgrappler.)

On this point, the Nightstick is an absolutely terrible weapon, there is no reason to use this over a Fist or a Shield.

Kitusser wrote:

Whispers of Weakness is limited in scope, and it progresses your curse. The two Mysteries that get it for free have the worst curse to progress.

Tap into Blood, if allowed to use the Specific Lore is easily a similar in power due to the scope of the ability. It also does in fact encroach on intelligence classes like the Wizard who notably do not have an easy way to do something similar.

It is most definitely not the "new standard" when it is still an exception.

Do you think the intention of this ability is to allow you to use specific Lore on every RK skillcheck? Mind you, not even Thaumaturge is getting the specific Lore DC here, and people have been arguing that Diverse Lore is too powerful for a while now.

I think RAW there is nothing stopping you from getting the lower DC, for either tap into blood or Diverse Lore, so long as it's for Recall Knowledge of course.

Keep in mind, Recall Knowledge is an Untrained skill action for the skills that have it as an action (Crafting, Lores, etc.). As a player, you can, if you want, when encountering a Zombie, use Zombie Lore to recall knowledge on it. But if you're actually Untrained, that's obviously a terrible idea.

A Sorcerer could use Tap into Blood and say "I will attempt a Zombie Lore check to Recall Knowledge, replacing it with Arcana." and that is perfectly by the rules.

Similarly, if a Thaumaturge with Diverse Lore encounters something like a weird statue depicting Sarenrae in strange ways, they could go "Alright I will use Recall Knowledge with Sarenrae Lore, replacing it with Esoteric Lore at -2 thanks to Diverse Lore".

A Bard could do the same if they had Bardic Lore, a Loremaster with Loremaster Lore, a Dandy with Gossip Lore, etc.

The only way you can prevent this is ruling Recall Knowledge to be a Trained or higher action in that Specific Lore, which is also supported by the rules, it's just not baseline.

I disagree that the Lore skills like Bardic Lore and Esoteric Lore can be specific, when they are very clearly general Lore skills. I don't know where you are getting that reading.

Perhaps Tap into Blood works RAW, but I doubt the intention is for it to work the way it is written.

Oracles have Whispers of Weakness, a 1-action 1st-level feat that tells them unerringly without a check every weakness of a creature and its lowest safe. Oh, and you also get a +2 status bonus to your next attack against them. Just like that.

Why would any Oracle ever bother with Recall Knowledge again?

And I don't think I'm reading the ability as "too good to be true". Maybe that would be a fair point if you only looked at that single ability on its very own, but when you consider the entirety of the changes that came along with the PC2-Remaster, then it's no longer sticking out like a sore thumb. This looks much more like a new standard.

The entire Recall Knowledge mechanic was always just an additional safety layer to stymy the power of casters, as martials rarely ever benefited from it: To a Fighter, AC is always the lowest save.

The Recall Knowledge mechanic was already buffed back in PC1, and this looks like a continuation of intentionally eroding that anti-caster barrier, now that it's obvious that they're not OP and could use some buffs. I appreciate it especially because it buffs the one type of caster that has the biggest issues in PF2e, the Blaster. Support casters don't need buffs, they're already plenty strong, and they also don't care about Recall Knowledge.

This is even similar to the Swashbuckler changes, and all their new ways to get Panache compared to the skill-bound options before the Remaster. I think these are intentional decisions, for the main features of classes should no longer be hidden behind "skill-check walls".

And giving non-INT blaster casters ways to make them more efficient at repealing the RK-barrier and thus use their main class feature (blasting spells) is a welcome change!

After Paizo remastered (almost) all the books, it's now time for the community to finally be "remastered" as well, so give up on your dusty Premaster conceptions.

Whispers of Weakness is limited in scope, and it progresses your curse. The two Mysteries that get it for free have the worst curse to progress.

Tap into Blood, if allowed to use the Specific Lore is easily a similar in power due to the scope of the ability. It also does in fact encroach on intelligence classes like the Wizard who notably do not have an easy way to do something similar.

It is most definitely not the "new standard" when it is still an exception.

Do you think the intention of this ability is to allow you to use specific Lore on every RK skillcheck? Mind you, not even Thaumaturge is getting the specific Lore DC here, and people have been arguing that Diverse Lore is too powerful for a while now.

Kitusser wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

I would always set the DC based on the most general applicable RK skill because it is even more unbalanced an ability to do otherwise.

Why should I as a GM let a person using arcana ever get the only benefit of picking a specific lore?

Because the game is supposed to be fun and you want your players to get the information?

Then we shouldn't be discussing whether Tap into Blood is overpowered or not. Because "the game is supposed to be fun and you want your players to get the information."

If you want players to get information, just tell them, don't hide it behind checks.

Tap into Blood isn't overpowered. Only reason some are bringing it up is because we hear how good the wizard is at RK checks as to a reason why they don't need some upgrades, then Tap the Blood comes along and suddenly the sorcerer who is a charisma class suddenly gets this ability that let's them RK using Arcane for everything. We all have to ask why? Why wasn't this a wizard ability? The intelligence class who many including myself see as an academic who should have a deep knowledge of a variety of subjects.

Tap the Blood isn't about power, it's about encroaching even on the fun aspects of the wizard like RK checks which "Wizards are perfect as is" proponents often push as a reason intelligence is a good casting stat.

As a mostly power gamer myself, I could care less about Tap the Blood. It isn't powerful to me at all. The first thing I use to find out about monsters is hitting them. 99% of the time my "RK" attack tells me all I need to know.

I let other players that enjoy the RK RP use it, while I just kill the thing and then give them a superfluous "thank you" after I kill the monster.

"Thanks for telling me how to kill it. I'll remember that next time I face it", as I think if I even bother to remember.

I used the wrong word. My point still stands though. If the game being fun means the players knowing more information, then it should be fine for the Sorcerer to have this ability. Why can't the Sorcerer also have decent knowledge gathering?

This is just a thought terminating cliché, which just ends all discussion.

Bluemagetim wrote:

I would always set the DC based on the most general applicable RK skill because it is even more unbalanced an ability to do otherwise.

Why should I as a GM let a person using arcana ever get the only benefit of picking a specific lore?

Because the game is supposed to be fun and you want your players to get the information?

Then we shouldn't be discussing whether Tap into Blood is overpowered or not. Because "the game is supposed to be fun and you want your players to get the information."

If you want players to get information, just tell them, don't hide it behind checks.

Kitusser wrote:

This is not a good faith reading of this feature. It says "Attempt to Recall Knowledge; you can use Arcana instead of the skill normally needed for that subject." You're making an Arcana check, not a Lore check.

Insinuating that I do not read in good faith what is literally written in the ability is nonsensical rhetoric.

Yes, you're making an Arcana check, but you use Arcana instead of the other skill, and the other skill - which happens to be a specific Lore skill - has a low DC. Thus you make an Arcana check on a low DC.

It's impossible to use Arcana as a reference to set the DC to Recall Knowledge on (say) a fungus creature, because Arcana cannot be used to identify fungal creatures. Nature or Fungus Lore can identify fungal creatures, so we use Arcana instead of one of those skills, and the skill we choose to use Recall Knowledge with is the one that sets the DC.

It is not good faith because it is "too good to be true". It is clearly outside the intention of this ability. Precedingly, the only abilities that allow you to RK on any topic with a Lore skill are either stunted in progression, or are considered a main feature of the class (Thaumaturge).

"The skill normally needed" is not the Lore skill, it is one of the normal (non Lore) Recall Knowledge skills. There are no checks within the game which only allow you to RK with Lore as far as I'm aware. No sane GM would allow you to do this, this ability is already quite powerful.

You aren't replacing the Lore skill, because Lore is meant to be specific, and Arcana is not a Lore skill. It makes the most sense to replace the skill closest to Arcana, which would be Nature in your example.

How would you make it better if i may ask?

If this is going to be a main feature of the Envoy, it should be expanded at higher levels. There are some feats which do this, like Got-Em!. Perhaps making them class features instead of class feats you need to take.

Or maybe just make more directives, and give some free picks of those directives. Kinda like the Commander and their Tactics.

I don't particularly mind Teridax's idea here, although this probably becomes too powerful past a certain level, due to Aid's scaling. Maybe just swapping the circumstance penalty to a circumstance bonus, keeping the extra damage, scaling the bonus to +2 at some point perhaps.

But I think I disagree with the idea that all directives are stances. Some of them should be stances, but not all of them.

My ideas are going to be vague, and I am not a game designer. But I'm really against the idea that the Envoy themselves should be dealing more damage.

Actually Get'Em! Applies a -1 Circumstance Penalty to Reflex makign it still incredible for Area/Auto Fire builds as well as Kineticists and other casters that use Reflex saves. However I do think Get'Em! being single target is an issue, it's worse then Bard straight up, make it Full Charisma to my damage, please Paizo.

I'd rather the ability was just better for support. This is a martial support class, and we only have one other.

It's real power doesn't come when compared to another party members +7 Int bonus to a lore skill, its when that +7 is pitted against the +28 the Sorcerer can have for being legendary in Thassilonian Textile Lore.

I don't think this feature works this way. It says "Attempt to Recall Knowledge; you can use Arcana instead of the skill normally needed for that subject." You're using Arcana, not a specific Lore skill.

I have to point out that Unified Theory doesn't allow you to recall knowledge on any topic. There are many RK checks that require you to use medicine, specific lores, crafting and society.

You're right, I missed that part of the feat.

I agree with Unicore that it is much harder to use than it seems. Everyone & especially the designers always seem to ignore how difficult it is to trigger bloodmagic.

Kitusser wrote:

My point is that if the Wizard wants to, they can invest in enough skills to probably outdo this feature. It does require decent bit of investment, but it is possible and is not entirely unreasonable. Remember that the only levels this really matters in are levels 1-14, because of Unified Theory.

If the Sorcerer has zero or minimal Intelligence investment, then the Wizard only needs to be Trained to match their skill modifier (as long as it's an Intelligence skill).

Now that is just plain wrong. Even a -1 INT Sorcerer now surpasses the apex-item-clutching Wizard with this ability.

Because the one thing that everyone but me seems not to have figured out yet, is that an arcane Sorcerer shouldn't use Arcana to Recall Knowledge on Nature or Religion or Society or whatever, but on Jungle Bird Lore or Zombie Shambler Lore or Varisian Pirates Lore or whatever you currently encounter.

Using this ability for highly specific Lore skills - instead of general knowledge skills - drops the DC by ~5 points! That's not something a Wizard's INT modifier can ever really make up for.

And the best thing about the arcane Tap Into Blood is that this isn't a bonus to the roll, but a drop of the DC, which means an arcane Sorcerer can just snag Assurance (Arcana) and auto succeed on every Recall Knowledge check henceforth, even with a -1 INT modifier!

This isn't surpassing the Wizard, this is surpassing the Bard!

This is not a good faith reading of this feature. It says "Attempt to Recall Knowledge; you can use Arcana instead of the skill normally needed for that subject." You're making an Arcana check, not a Lore check.

Kitusser wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Arcane: One of two worthwhile effects. Encroaches on the wizard and other intelligent skill using classes a fair bit though.

It actually doesn't encroach on the Wizard.

It SHOULD be encroaching on the Wizard, but this wholly surpasses the Wizard's knowledge functionality.

I'd agree if the Sorcerer wasn't hard pressed to fit Int into their build. Sacrificing any of Cha, Dex, Wis, or Con is just losing too much. You could maybe argue that losing 2 points is fine, but anything past that is too much.

Wizard just needs to be buffed somehow.

Sorcerers don't need an Int investment to make it work. Not really.

The thing is that they aren't competing with an Int based class who has the same skill proficiency as them, rolling against the same creature. That is that Int classes strength afterall.

They are competing against the lack of skill proficiency that Int based class will have against everything that isn't in their wheelhouse.

Having a +7 from Int to a lore check is great, but its a hell of a lot less than the +28 the sorcerer may have because they get to use 1 skill for everything.

Not all Int classes are the same mind you, Investigators (and some Rogues) get a much better time out of this comparison.

Orientating to the Wizard in particular, at 20th the Wizard will have 3 skills at legendary and potentially more if they pick up serveral Additional Lore feats. However, even when attempting to optimise, the Wizard simply can't cover all the options that they may face in a 1-20 adventure (more so if you do one of those 1-11 paths and jump to a different 11+ path).

The Arcane version of Tap Into Blood removes that worry. Its a single investment which will always be useful against every enemy.

My point is that if the Wizard wants to, they can invest in enough skills to probably outdo this feature. It does require decent bit of investment, but it is possible and is not entirely unreasonable. Remember that the only levels this really matters in are levels 1-14, because of Unified Theory.

If the Sorcerer has zero or minimal Intelligence investment, then the Wizard only needs to be Trained to match their skill modifier (as long as it's an Intelligence skill).

But as a separate point, needing to invest in so many skills to be good at Recall Knowledge is a massive pain point of this system.

Kitusser wrote:

Old_Man_Robot wrote:

I honestly don't understand this "throwing the toys out of the pram" issue with Tap Into Blood is.

It being an action instead of a Reaction/Free Action does make it a bit awkward. That awkwardness is far from a deal breaker.

I would LOVE to have a similar option as the Arcane Tap Into Blood for Wizard's. Tying it to School spells would be utter trash, given how much more limited those options are compared to the Sorcerers ability to trigger blood magic. But this should be something Wizards can do.

To reframe this discussion, it's not that Tap Into Blood is the most OMG AMAZEBALLS ability ever.

Its that it takes something that feels like it should be a Wizard feature, and gives it Sorcerers, while the Wizard simply lacks anything like that.

The Wizard should be a knowledge class. But they aren't.

It's a deal breaker for Divine, Occult and Primal sorcerers. This feat is basically pointless for them, and the only way it would make sense would be if the ability was a free action or a reaction.

FYI the reason why Occult is bad is because you need to cast a spell before getting your boosted step. In 99% of scenarios, you've already defeated the purpose of the step by casting a spell, because Reactive Strike is provoked by spells.

Primal and Divine are self explanatory.

Why is this whole discussion centered around Arcane? That's the only part of the feature that does not suck.

Because this is a discussion about wizard being weak. The natural comparison is therefore arcane sorcerer.

That would make sense if the argument was only about the comparison to the Wizard, but it is not.

Occult: Fine as is.

I disagree that Occult is fine. Because the usefulness of the 10ft Step is almost completely overridden by the fact you are casting a spell with the Manipulate trait directly beforehand. At that point you might as well just Stride because you've already taken the Reactive Strike.

Ravingdork wrote:

Arcane: One of two worthwhile effects. Encroaches on the wizard and other intelligent skill using classes a fair bit though.

It actually doesn't encroach on the Wizard.

It SHOULD be encroaching on the Wizard, but this wholly surpasses the Wizard's knowledge functionality.

I'd agree if the Sorcerer wasn't hard pressed to fit Int into their build. Sacrificing any of Cha, Dex, Wis, or Con is just losing too much. You could maybe argue that losing 2 points is fine, but anything past that is too much.

Wizard just needs to be buffed somehow.

I honestly don't understand this "throwing the toys out of the pram" issue with Tap Into Blood is.

It being an action instead of a Reaction/Free Action does make it a bit awkward. That awkwardness is far from a deal breaker.

I would LOVE to have a similar option as the Arcane Tap Into Blood for Wizard's. Tying it to School spells would be utter trash, given how much more limited those options are compared to the Sorcerers ability to trigger blood magic. But this should be something Wizards can do.

To reframe this discussion, it's not that Tap Into Blood is the most OMG AMAZEBALLS ability ever.

Its that it takes something that feels like it should be a Wizard feature, and gives it Sorcerers, while the Wizard simply lacks anything like that.

The Wizard should be a knowledge class. But they aren't.

It's a deal breaker for Divine, Occult and Primal sorcerers. This feat is basically pointless for them, and the only way it would make sense would be if the ability was a free action or a reaction.

FYI the reason why Occult is bad is because you need to cast a spell before getting your boosted step. In 99% of scenarios, you've already defeated the purpose of the step by casting a spell, because Reactive Strike is provoked by spells.

Primal and Divine are self explanatory.

Why is this whole discussion centered around Arcane? That's the only part of the feature that does not suck.

Temp HP abilities are balanced against the force field armor upgrade, which only can be used three times per day, costs a lot, and takes up a slot. All day resourcesless temp HP sources are going to be worse than that at comparable levels.

There are options in Envoy which give way more Temporary Hitpoints for a much lower cost. I don't really see why Temp HP should be lower than healing. Also an armor upgrade is not really analogous to a class feature.

The issue with Temp HP being too low is that they aren't going to actually keep someone up to soak an extra attack or turn. At level 7, Steel Yourselves! gives 5 Temp HP, how often is this actually making a difference? You're spending two actions total to achieve this.

Compare this to Hang in there! Which gives 11 Temp HP on a successful DC 20 Diplomacy check, or 18 on a critical success. Sure it only works once per ally, but it's resourceless and will likely prevent a hit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for your other comment. I'm not sure why you're excluding options which are "costly" resources. These options are still used within the game, and are useful for the whole party. All you need is one enemy to be Off Guard and it's likely going to be better to hit that enemy over someone with Get Em!. Limiting it to only ranged options makes no sense either.

Also my whole point is that if you're in a party who easily applies Off Guard, you're going to be overshadowed by them. The damage boost from Get Em! is not very good compared to the extra -1 to AC. The Envoy should not be the "consolidation" for the striker classes when it comes to support from their main feature. Envoy shouldn't feel like they're being overshadowed in a party that applies Off Guard easily. Furthermore, parties with melee characters who flank and/or trip are going to make the Envoy feel un-needed.

Ranged Trip is also a trait many weapons will have.

Kitusser wrote:

I suspect Paizo doesn't want Envoy to step on the toes of the Commander. Not sure what the solution here is, but I wish this class had a greater focus on support. Pathfinder/Starfinder is not lacking in ranged damage dealers, but is definitely lacking in martial supports.

I'd say that the Commander and Envoy are fundamentally different enough classes that they're unlikely to tread on each other's toes unless one tries really hard to play like the other. The Commander's all about using their own actions to make their allies do things with amazing action economy, whereas the Envoy's a skill monkey who's also good at team buffs. I completely agree that the Envoy is really messily-designed right now, though, and their class features feel chock-full of number boosters that should've been left behind in 1e, particularly the multiple uses of a per-day ability.

Following up on the above, my suggestions would be:

Gut the number boosters from the Envoy's class features, specifically Wise to the Game, Practiced/Savvy/Effortless Influencer, Hidden/Indiscernible Agenda, and Silver Tongue's mechanics beyond the class DC bump.

Take the higher-level directives out of the class features, and either make them into early-level feats or have each subclass give its own bonus directive (or both).

Rework leadership styles so that it's less about getting bonus skill increases and feats (which you get plenty of already) and more about getting new directives and new ways of leading by example (that can't be made into free actions unless that's explicitly the intention). Alternatively, streamline the Envoy even further by doing away with subclasses and giving them even more build flexibility through feats.

I'd personally lean towards making Size Up and Saw It Coming into feats that can then be built upon, rather than their own class feature.

Combine Adaptive Talent, Improvised Mastery, and Legendary Improvisation into a 1st-level feature that lets you gain temporary skill feats...

I think I mostly agree here. Although I think the class should get some directives for free, kinda like how the Commander gets free Tactics. I personally really like Size Up, but I'm not going to die on the hill of it needing to be a class feature.

I want this class to be more support focused, and I feel it is lacking combat-wise in that regard.

-
-

- Get Em! is the main feature of this class and I think it is too weak after low levels. Envoy should get more directives and not need to spend class feats to obtain them necessarily.

- Steel Yourselves! is just a terrible ability. It is once per hour, barely gives any Temp HP, and it costs an action from you and your party member. The lead by example effect is pretty good though, can conflict with other buffs however.

- All these abilities which boost their skills are all over the place. I like Size Up, maybe more of the class budget should go into this ability, and there should be more feats to expand on this. Having 8 features which enhance skills feels messy.

I suspect Paizo doesn't want Envoy to step on the toes of the Commander. Not sure what the solution here is, but I wish this class had a greater focus on support. Pathfinder/Starfinder is not lacking in ranged damage dealers, but is definitely lacking in martial supports.

I don't mind the overlap with Get 'em. Eithe ryou don't have both in the same party, or you can spread the effects among multiple targets. There are ways to play around the overlap.

This ability is supposed to be for focus firing, and it's your main feature. If you have a party who easily provides Off-Guard, there is almost no reason to use this ability. Spreading things out is suboptimal.

And "Don't have both in the same party" in a game with 6 classes is really asking for a lot. Operative unironically does Envoy's job better here. Off-Guard is more powerful than Get Em! is. Even if there were more classes, it's going to be a common occurrence to have both in the same part. I think it's bad design to not want a support and a striker on the same squad.

Kitusser wrote:

This directive gets the Digital Diversion feat which lets them Create a Diversion using the Computers skill (which is an Intelligence skill). Why wouldn't you just use Deception instead? Envoy's key ability score is Charisma.

Moreover, one if its Acts of Leadership is to Create a Diversion using Computers. Not seeing the reason to pick this.

Completely agree.

I was excited to see that there was a “computers” focused option.

Reading through the option though, it’s primary effect is essentially to let you use the computers skill to replace deception for a distraction. This might be powerful on a high INT character, but on a Charisma based Envoy, it seems like a bad trade off. For almost all envoys, deception will be higher than computers, even if you build INT as a secondary stat. And this is fine; the problem here is that this ability’s only benefit is to provide Computers as an alternative to Deception and since deception will normally be higher on an envoy, the player is being asked to choose to do something they can probably already do, and just to do it at a lower bonus and with a restricted set of targets (tech). Even if the Envoy uses the ability, they may still be worse at causing distractions than other envoys using deception.

Would love to see an approach where this ability gives some benefit that doesn’t directly compete with deception (or another CHA skill) so that the Infosphere envoy player has a more optimal choice and so that this envoy has some sort of ability that differentiates them (even a little) from other envoys.

Courtly Graces worked similarly to Digital Diversion, and they changed it so that if you use the original skill for the feat, it gets a +1 Circumstance bonus. Just doing this and changing the Act of Leadership should be good.

I actually like Foretell Harm. Unlike persistent damage, it triggers at the beginning of the target(s?)' turn. You wouldn't want it as your only cursebound. (The only 1st level cursebound that seems relevant more than once a battle is Nudge the Scales, so most builds probably want to get two.) Applying it to a whole groups would be pretty great, but even on a single target, you're talking about free action, no save damage. And most notably you can save this for when your spell ALMOST kills an enemy. You know when you leave an enemy at single digit HP and wish you had one more action to fire a magic missile? This basically gives you that extra action.

I appreciate Amaya/Polaris's write up. Their thoughts mirror my own. I really like the flavor of the Dead Walk. It would make a great addition to my battle oracle. Sadly I'm having a really hard time justifying it instead of just converting him to flames.

The thing is that you're increasing your curse, so it's not "free".

Dangerous Sorcery (or the new Sorcerous Potency) is actually free, and it undeniably works on every target of the spell. It's also damage that comes immediately, not after a delay (damage now is better than damage later). The only advantages of Foretell harm is the fact that the damage can proc weaknesses, and it does full damage regardless of the enemy saving throw result.

If it hits all enemies it becomes a lot better, but I still don't like the per target cooldown.

1 Foretell Harm (starting feat for Flames/Tempest): free action 1/round, previous non-cantrip damage spell's target takes 2*spell rank damage of the same type on their next turn, then is immune 24 hours. It's not an astoundingly impactful amount in a vacuum, but it can retrigger weaknesses, has no save, and takes no extra action economy. If the PFS clarifications have input from the designers, it's supposed to work on all targets of an AoE, which would also magnify it quite a bit. Helpful to have and use either way, worthwhile enough for all but the most extreme curses (and by that I mostly mean Ancestors unless they can get some safety), though other Cursebounds may outshine it in their use cases.

If those PFS changes are legit this feat seems to be a lot better now, although the per target cooldown is still questionable. Before the feat was honestly pretty bad, only working on a single target, and having a per target cooldown.

Kitusser wrote:

I wonder if changing Get'Em! to be an untyped penalty would be a bad idea. Off-Guard is easy to apply, although admittedly less so with ranged based parties.

The main idea is probably to let you apply a weaker off-guard at range? And it still doesn't seem too easy to apply off-guard at range normally, so it has some purpose. But, also... why not just have it apply off-guard...

Possibly, or make the ability scale better at higher levels. Off-Guard is hard to apply at ranged for early levels, but at higher levels, it becomes quite a bit easier through spells and class feats. If you have an Operative or a couple melee martials (especially if they use athletics maneuvers often), off guard becomes a fairly common condition.

If you make Get Em! an untyped penalty, it stacks with Off-Guard and other penalties, making the ability not redundant in certain parties and actually very valuable.

I feel like the only real answer here is for Infosphere Director to replace CHA KAS with INT. Not sure how illegal it would be to have a nerdy envoy.

On a semi-related note, I would like a skill feat that lets you use Computers for Make an Impression if you're using your anonymous Infosphere persona. Call it "So Much Cooler Online" or something. Characters who can exert themselves socially online but fail to look a cashier in the eye are very much a thing.

The issue with this is that Envoy has many feats/abilities that are designed around them being Charisma based.

Kitusser wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Tap into blood seems ok, but the “must have already cast a blood magic spell" means you are not learning anything actionable for your own character on the turn you recall knowledge. It also probably means needing to keep arcana as a maxed skill which is pretty costly for a sorcerer unless no one else in the party is keeping up with nature or religion.

They have thrown the imperial wizard a lot of treats, once I get the book I will look into making one, but I doubt it will come close to replacing a spell substitution wizard as my favorite class.

I suspect that this feat is supposed to be a free action. Getting a Demoralize that uses Nature is terrible on a Sorcerer, so is the 5ft step that you could already do. If it was a free action to activate, it doesn't seem so bad.

There are ways to activate your bloodline magic as a reaction eg Blood Rising and Blood Vendetta is a bloodline spell for some.

True, maybe making it a reaction would work too. It being an action though just makes some of the options pointless.

Envoys are a good class if you want to play a social media personality in which case a Digital Diversion seems perfect.

You already want Charisma and Dexterity to be high, leveling Constitution and Wisdom is also preferable. You just don't have much room for intelligence to be high. Why would I ever use Digital Diversion when I can just use Deception normally for create a diversion?

Tap into blood seems ok, but the “must have already cast a blood magic spell" means you are not learning anything actionable for your own character on the turn you recall knowledge. It also probably means needing to keep arcana as a maxed skill which is pretty costly for a sorcerer unless no one else in the party is keeping up with nature or religion.

They have thrown the imperial wizard a lot of treats, once I get the book I will look into making one, but I doubt it will come close to replacing a spell substitution wizard as my favorite class.

I suspect that this feat is supposed to be a free action. Getting a Demoralize that uses Nature is terrible on a Sorcerer, so is the 5ft step that you could already do. If it was a free action to activate, it doesn't seem so bad.

If you think that's weird. Go look at Operative's Overwhelming Strike (Free-action) - It can apply Off-Guard which makes the -1 Circumstance penalty to AC of Get'Em! pointless and only thing you get is the +1 to all allies damage. (And half Cha to damage for the Enovy giving you 2-3 more damage...)

I wonder if changing Get'Em! to be an untyped penalty would be a bad idea. Off-Guard is easy to apply, although admittedly less so with ranged based parties.

There are spells in the book that talk about ranged spell attack rolls, eg Ignition in Player Core. It also uses talks about melee spell attacks.

Yes the rules section on attacks says melee, ranged, then spell attacks. So I get where you are coming from. But the wording "Ranged Attacks" and "Spell Attacks" are not capitalised or defined as specific terms. So I feel the better approach is to follow Paizo's instruction and read them like natural language.

If you ask me if a ranged spell attack is a ranged attack I'm always going to say yes. So IMO the penalty should apply. Until such time as we hear otherwise.

This probably needs some clarification to avoid confusion. Usually this system operates under keywords.

Computers is a very important skill, and Envoys may want to go legendary in it but not in Deception for certain character themes/builds. If you're planning on a tech driven character who forges documents rather than doing physical disguises and lying a lot, plus crafting and maybe some lore/arcana/occultism investment with a decent intelligence, this is the one for you.

I'm not saying it's great.

Envoy gets so many skill increases that I doubt they're not going to be able to level both Deception and Computers. This subclass should have benefits for an Envoy who is using their charisma skills. It just seems better to pick another subclass and just take skill increases for Computers.

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Okay6, so which Curse is the least Painful to use now?

In rough order the best curses are

Flames - just make sure you have plenty of healing available and you can just ignore the damage. It is typically 1-2 points per round and worse case of 4.
Life - make sure you have non magical healing available ie Battle Medicine and alchemical healing. That is not hard to get.
Cosmos - just build a ranged character that doesn't care for Strength and doesn't need to be in melee. Trivial.

Then you probably want to limit how much you use your cursebound powers versus certain opponents
Tempest - don't push this curse if you are up against electrical attacks, and don't make ranged attacks (ie stick to save based for your offensive magic)
Bones - don't push this curse if you are up against undead or enemies that target your fortitude defense.
Lore - don't push this curse if you are up against enemies that target your will defense
Battle - don't push this curse if you are up against blasters and casters in general.

The worst is likely
Ancestors - clumsy is harsh in both melee and ranged as you need AC and Reflex defense so this is going to be the hardest to cope with. My suggestion would be to rely on concealment and hidden effects as they will still work with this curse. Get Invisibility from somewhere

The first 4 are pretty easy, the last 2 are hard.

In regards to Tempest, I'm pretty sure "Ranged Attacks" are seperate from "Spell Attacks" within the rules.

Take a look at the rules for Attack Rolls, it states "Ranged attack roll result = d20 roll + Dexterity modifier + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties"(https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2187). Whereas Spell Attack is specifically separate in the rules and is defined as "Spell attack roll result = d20 roll + spellcasting attribute modifier + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties" (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2292).

Spell Attacks should be safe from the curse.

This directive gets the Digital Diversion feat which lets them Create a Diversion using the Computers skill (which is an Intelligence skill). Why wouldn't you just use Deception instead? Envoy's key ability score is Charisma.

Moreover, one if its Acts of Leadership is to Create a Diversion using Computers. Not seeing the reason to pick this.