Kitusser's page

If you're going to call me out, at least make sure you actually know even basic statistics. Because you're forgetting about resistance appropriate to monster level. People like assuming max 20-level damage points in most of your arguments when in reality you'll be fighting monsters of your level plus or minus up to three levels. Which imposes more appropriate resistances. Another reality is most of you aren't even going to be fighting at level 20. As rarely do campaigns even get that far, as rarely are written campaigns even designed to go that far nowadays...

None of this analysis matters because you are ignoring the fact that resistance doesn't come up frequently enough to overcome the -2 per rank. I call you out because you refuse to engage with this idea again and again, even in this comment.

Making a jab about basic statistics, then not engaging with the fact that a -2 damage per rank against all enemies more impactful than a damage resistance that exists on small portion of the monsters in the game is certainly interesting.

This is likely to matter even less than that, because you can often just target another enemy without the resistance.

Don't forget the lack of playtesting. When people just change stuff and do it in a vacuum from other people doing that without testing those options, you wind up doing things that sound good on paper but... *waves hands*

I'm also not sure even people working within a class agree on balance. Oracle's mysteries/curses are all over the place ranging from "this curse does basically nothing" to "this curse will get you killed".

Agreed on all points.

I don’t know if I will have time to deep dive the math, but a quick look tell me that flurry of claws that does double damage on a crit is equal to fire ray damage wis, but would be trading 30ft of range for the ability to do twice as much damage when you can manage a second target. So the decision is, is that a fair trade off?

Another point of comparison would be to look at where flurry of claws with double damage on a crit compares directly to a spell slot spell like Breathe Fire, which is also pretty likely to hit 1 or 2 targets most of the time it is used. The damage is the same base but I would look at the accuracy map in a couple of different situations, including where there is are bonuses to attack in the party. Focus spells should come in better than a cantrip, but not as good as an equal ranked spell slot spell that is heightened to a top slot.

Fire ray is not nearly as good as Thunderstrike or Horizon Thunder Sphere.

The question after then becomes whether it's worth it to trade no crit effect and less range for a potential extra target. I would say it's not worth it.

But I'd also take issue with your base question, because Fire Ray does more damage than Flurry of Claws due to the burn effect on the floor, or it forces the enemy to spend an action to move. The spells need to be compared fully to eachother, and Fire Ray is a rare spell attack with an effect on a failure.

It's always worked that way. The "critical hits double damage" rule is Strike specific, and Spell Attacks are not Strikes:

I am aware that the general rule does not apply to spell attacks. I thought that was pretty clear from my comment seeing as I never said otherwise. But no it hasn't "always worked this way", because no spell attack prior to these examples has had no difference between a critical success and success as far as I am aware.

You say it would be wild for Paizo to make such a basic mistake, but it's not like basic mistakes like this haven't been occurring recently like that one Kineticist Impulse not having an area.

Seeing as these spell attacks are not exactly that much more powerful than normal ones, if at all, it seems very strange for there to be nothing more on a critical success for these spells.

A core aspect of this game is how rolling 10 over or under the DC of something is either a critical success or failure. It's strange for new spells to not interact with this aspect at all, and it goes against core tactical assumptions of the game.

The fact that it's easy for someone to make a mistake and think these spells do, in fact, have a critical success effect shows this pretty well. The design is unintuitive to the overall way the game functions and is played, and is confusing because of this.

The issue with the current lack of quality control is that we're also not getting timely errata, and developers won't answer rules questions on social media (including these forums), so we're stuck with unclear or outright broken rules indefinitely. Add in that Paizo seems to be taking a mostly nerf-heavy approach to balance, and the quality that shone through at the start of PF2's life seems to be rapidly sliding into the rear-view mirror.

It seems like some people in Paizo just have different ideas for what class balance should be, and the people that agree with each other are working on the same classes.

Like on one hand Oracle gets super buffed (while being made a lot more uninteresting), but Wizard gets nerfed (at least it was kind of understandable because of the OGL nonsense).

Class design seems to still be pretty good, but maybe we will see something different with Necromancer and Runesmith.

moosher12 wrote:

Ajaxius wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

But here's the thing. If you miss Imaginary Weapon, just get Gouging Claw

Gouging claw is not on the occult spell list.

All my commentary here is from the point of view of Magi getting Imaginary Weapon, not Psychics.

If anything, my thoughts on the psychic itself are this. If Imaginary Weapon is so good that Conscious Minds other than The Tangible Dream are not being considered, that is already a sign that Imaginary Weapon either needed a nerf, or needed to be turned into a general psychic ability.

Whether it's magi or psychics doesn't matter at all. D8 B/P is better than d6 F 99 times out of 100. Even when resistance applies, it's a pitiful amount of lost damage compared to all the damage you gain elsewhere. Or are you still trying to argue that gaining 2-5 points of damage against resistant targets outweighs the 2-20+ loss new IW suffers everywhere else?

It's like you're so terrified of resistance 5 in a stat block that you'll effectively give everything else resistance 10 just to say you beat it.

moosher literally cannot engage with this point at all, they just keep talking about how force goes through everything and how that so special when it's mathematically not actually that useful in most fights. Especially when—like you said—it costs you so much everywhere else.

Looking around there are a few other spells with the same issue:

Glutton's Jaws (also PC2), Sticky Fire (battlecry), and Vindicator's Mark (War of Immortals) all lack any crit benefits.

Three are a handful of other spells that don't double on a crit (like hydraulic press) but still have defined benefits for critical success.

... It's so haphazard it definitely feels like someone forgot.

Tridus wrote:

PFS GMs absolutely can't: they're specifically not allowed to. Barring a PFS ruling, the spell does what it says so no extra crit damage.

Willing to bet most PFS tables let it crit for double regardless though, probably without even realizing that it's even an error.

Unless this is some new direction for spell attacks (which would be an insane decision), this is very unlikely to be anything more than a mistake. It goes against basic ideas of the game and against common wisdom. But who knows, Rogue still upgrades fortitude saves.

moosher12 wrote:

If you miss Imaginary Weapon, just get Gouging Claw

Nerfing the cantrip was actually good because you can just ignore one of your class features and pick up a different cantrip through some out of class shenanigans instead to get back to zero (which wasn't even good in the first place).

The coping going on is absolutely wild.

I don't get it either.

Kitusser wrote:

Unicore wrote:

maybe I am misremembering about polar ray, although I think it might have been errata'd at some point, but Hydraulic Push at rank 2 does 5d6 on a success and 8d6 on a crit. it is only double at rank 1.

And Disintegrate doesn't do double damage on a crit.

Minimally, Flurry of claws RAW does not double on a crit and would need errata to do so.

It is also possible that a focus spell that is being presented as universally superior to the new imaginary weapon might not be.

Yes but they still deal something extra on a crit. It's unprecedented for a spell attack to do nothing different on a critical success. It's almost certainly an oversight. Especially when it was errated the few times that it did happen.

But this is a distraction from the main discussion anyway. Whether Flurry of Claws does anything on a crit or not, there was no reason for IW to be nerfed.

By RAW Flurry of claws dos not do double damage on a crit. We can’t pretend like it does to say that precedent has been set on what a top shelf focus spell that targets 2 enemies is, without realizing that no doubling on a crit is a massive damage reduction on that ability. Paizo writers know that spells have to include language about what they do on a crit, every other spell that double damage on a crit has it. So it might be an Errata candidate, or it might be an intentional limit. 2d6 damage +2d6 per rank on more than one target is already spell slot level damage.

As far as its basic form, a cantrip doing d6 force damage is a HUGE deal for bypassing incorporeal creatures resistance. A generic melee only D6 force cantrip would be picked up by almost every caster.

The fact that this mistake has happened before, and it's been corrected every time, that this spell is not exactly overpowered with the ability to crit, and the fact that it goes against basic aspects of the game speaks otherwise.

Yes you can bypass incorporeal with it, not sure that they're common enough that the spell should lose 2 damage per rank over. And if the other guy was correct, then it already did bypass incorporeal.

Also it's not like the Psychic was starving for options for dealing with incorporeal anyway.

Mmhm, I'm sure the multitude of Resistance all Damage X (except force, ghost touch, spirit, or vitality; double resistance vs. non-magical) creatures I'm encountering as a player in Season of Ghosts is all in my head. or the multitude of swarms with Resistance bludgeoning x, piercing y, slashing z. Yeap, fairly rare.

Yeap, definitely resistances that rarely came up when I ran Kingmaker and while studying Guilt of the Grave World. Nope, players do not expect to run into them.

Yes, certain damage types shine in certain themed campaigns, who would've known? This has nothing to actually do with the amount of enemies that actually have resistance to bludgeoning. When weighed against all monsters, it's not very common.

Fire damage can be superior to force in many campaigns where fire weakness is common. Same with Holy Spirit damage. This isn't the point you think it is.

I'm sure you're having fun playing in campaigns where the only enemies are humanoids. But some of us are fighting monsters, which sort of tend to have resistances.

Are you being serious? Did I miss the part where non-humanoids all have resistance to bludgeoning?

Also it cannot be ignored that in many fights with incorporeal enemies, you can just use a different spell or target a different enemy. The occult list is good at overcoming incorporeal resistances already.

Reducing the damage die when they decide on damage being Force is what Paizo does. For a very long time.

Just now it seems to bother some people.

Okay, and?

As The Raven black said, this has been the operation of things for a long time. Since 1E, even.

Pathfinder 1E Ultimate Magic pg. 128: The Golden Rule wrote:

Compare your spell to similar spells, and to other spells of its intended level.

Unlike when pricing magic items, there are no formulae for how to correctly "price" a spell. The entire process is a matter of comparing the new spell you're creating to other spells and evaluating whether your spell is weaker, stronger, or about the same as that spell or group of spells. Designing a spell requires a firm understanding of all the game's rules, not just those related to spells. Furthermore, it requires an understanding of some unwritten game assumptions, most of which are discussed throughout this section.

Example: If you look at the spell list in the Core Rulebook, you'll notice that there isn't a 1st-level wizard spell that deals sonic damage. You may decide to design a spell to fill that niche, modeling it after burning hands, except dealing sonic damage instead of fire-perhaps you'd call it sonic screech. However, there's a reason there aren't as many sonic spells in the game: "sonic" as an energy type is a late addition to the rules, and very few monsters have any resistance to sonic damage because most monsters existed before "sonic" was defined as an energy type. Because there are fewer creatures with sonic resistance than creatures with fire resistance, sonic screech will almost always be a better spell than burning hands. That means if you introduce sonic screech into your game, you'll see savvy players selecting it instead of burning hands. If a new spell displaces an existing spell from the roster of most spellcasters, it probably means it's better than other available choices-and if it's so good that it's obviously the best spell choice, it's probably overpowered. Understanding the entire system of rules can help you avoid mistakes like this.

Tempering advantages like these...

Whether it has been practice doesn't change the fact it is a net nerf. Stop appealing to random things and engage with what's actually being said.

Enemies with bludgeoning resistance are fairly rare, so the damage change is rarely going to result in more damage, whereas the -2 per rank will matter every single time you use this spell. Going from poison to force would be a big deal, but going from an already rarely resisted damage type to force is not.

The spell did not need a nerf, the only problematic use was Magus, which got patched out anyway.

At the moment, the Math works out for cantrip levels. The cantrip to compare to is Gouging claw. Bludgeoning Imaginary Weapon was equivalent to a Gouging Claw. Both had an average of 9/13.5/18/22.5/27/31.5/36/40.5/45/49.5. Both were physical spells and likely to deal with resist. This was fine for the time.

Now, it was reduced to a 7/10.5/14/17.5/21/24.5/28/31.5/35/38.5, which matches the growth of melee Ignition, but with a much wider net due to its Force trait.

But here's the thing. If you miss Imaginary Weapon, just get Gouging Claw, it'll give you the same results, statistically. Actually, due to the bleeding danage, it should get you more precise numbers than old Imaginary Weapon, if not being able to reach those last fringe 11 points of potential damage, which would be pretty far along the bell curve anyway. You say 2-20, but the 20 is pretty optimistic.

Imaginary Weapon is now just a more powerful melee Ignition. It does the same damage, but is harder to resist. Old Imaginary Weapon was already equivalent numbers-wise with Gouging Claw on the average damage and equivalent with range. It was changed to magical damage and does cantrip melee magical damage consistent with other magic-damage cantrips, and if anything provides a rare damage type that no cantrip offers. The original did physical damage and cantrip physical damage consistent with other physical-damage cantrips.

It's completely irrelevant to compare to only melee ignition when ignition also has a ranged option.

Gouging Claw as a cantrip is now just superior.

You aren't addressing how little the damage type change matters.

Kitusser wrote:

Unicore wrote:

They made it force damage and dropped it one damage die, and it is only one unique cantrip that never worked as a “bread and butter” combat spell (for the psychic). Its adjustment barely affects the psychic at all. If you want to be a blasty psychic you go oscillating wave. Shield is the powerhouse psi cantrip of tangible dream.

How does making it Force damage make up for the damage loss?

Not sure what the argument of it barely affecting the entire Psychic class is supposed to mean. That doesn't change that it's an unnecessary nerf and affects the people choosing that subclass or focus spell. That's like saying removing the bloodmagic effect from Elemental Bloodline "barely affects the Sorcerer at all".

Force damage is actually a pretty big buff, because there are very few, if any creatures, with resistance to force, while resistance to bludgeoning comes up with some regularity. Basically, in many campaigns, resistance to bludgeoning will inevitably be encountered, but resistance to force is near nonexistant.

It really isn't a big buff. Generally damage types aren't that big of a factor in balance. Bludgeoning is one of the better damage types in terms of how often it's resisted anyway. Losing damage to resistance in less than 5% of fights is worse than losing damage in every single fight.

maybe I am misremembering about polar ray, although I think it might have been errata'd at some point, but Hydraulic Push at rank 2 does 5d6 on a success and 8d6 on a crit. it is only double at rank 1.

And Disintegrate doesn't do double damage on a crit.

Minimally, Flurry of claws RAW does not double on a crit and would need errata to do so.

It is also possible that a focus spell that is being presented as universally superior to the new imaginary weapon might not be.

Yes but they still deal something extra on a crit. It's unprecedented for a spell attack to do nothing different on a critical success. It's almost certainly an oversight. Especially when it was errated the few times that it did happen.

But this is a distraction from the main discussion anyway. Whether Flurry of Claws does anything on a crit or not, there was no reason for IW to be nerfed.

Kalaam wrote:

It feels like an oversight for Flurry of Claw not to do anything.

It could be, it could also be a limit on an otherwise pretty powerful focus spell that hits 2 targets.

Doubtful. Is there any other spell attack in the game that works this way? The focus spell is far from overpowered, it not having a critical success effect definitely seems like an oversight and goes against core ideas of the system.

They made it force damage and dropped it one damage die, and it is only one unique cantrip that never worked as a “bread and butter” combat spell (for the psychic). Its adjustment barely affects the psychic at all. If you want to be a blasty psychic you go oscillating wave. Shield is the powerhouse psi cantrip of tangible dream.

How does making it Force damage make up for the damage loss?

Not sure what the argument of it barely affecting the entire Psychic class is supposed to mean. That doesn't change that it's an unnecessary nerf and affects the people choosing that subclass or focus spell. That's like saying removing the bloodmagic effect from Elemental Bloodline "barely affects the Sorcerer at all".

Those changes to the psychic sound about perfect to me. There is no reason an amped cantrip needed to heighten as well better than the damage for many spell slot spells.

This also makes me think that Impossible Magic is going to at least have to have a couple more spell slot spell attack roll spells, because it seems like spellstrike is mostly staying the same.

There's plenty good reason, like the class only having 2 Spellslots, and the fact the Focus Spell is locked into melee. Now it's literally just a worse version of Flurry of Claws, which is on a class with double the spellslots. Amps are supposed to be more powerful than other focus spells.

The Psychic is easily the worst caster in the game, and these changes don't address that at all. Unleash Psyche is straight up not that good of a feature, and having 2 Spellslots per rank is a really big downside.

The main difference is that whereas previous directives let you use different actions, including composite actions that might include the triggering Lead By Example action, the new model only allows you to spend an extra action to use that one action. Additionally, leadership styles previously let you activate the Lead by Example benefits using other actions, which in one particular case even let you do so as a free action (Infosphere Director, Recall Knowledge using Automatic Knowledge); that is no longer a thing. The new directives are therefore far more prescriptive and rigid as a result, and block synergy between those directives and abilities that might include action compression of their own.

Yes, this is what I was referencing.

Driftbourne wrote:

Kitusser wrote:

I have a few pet peeves with Infosphere Director, like the fact it requires a decent Intelligence on an already MAD class. This isn't unusable, and I think it's actually one of the better subclasses despite this, but even the Bard gets to use Charisma for Bardic Lore.

I don't see Intelligence as a disadvantage in a skill monkey class, especially when lots of the published scenarios give lore skills a +2 or +3 advantage over other skill checks. I don't think the problem here is the class; to me, it's SF2e dropping SF1e profession skills to use PF2e style lore skills. Lores are all Int-based, whereas professions were split up into Cha, Int, or Wis, making them usable by a much wider group of characters. The Bard getting to use Charisma for Bardic Lore is basically an SF1e profession.

As Vortext noted above, Bardic Lore doesn't let you use Charisma with it, so there's actually no problem here. Bards must also invest in intelligence to use this.

I must've gotten confused with Thaumaturge. I swear I remember Bards having this.

I don't see Intelligence as a disadvantage in a skill monkey class, especially when lots of the published scenarios give lore skills a +2 or +3 advantage over other skill checks. I don't think the problem here is the class; to me, it's SF2e dropping SF1e profession skills to use PF2e style lore skills. Lores are all Int-based, whereas professions were split up into Cha, Int, or Wis, making them usable by a much wider group of characters. The Bard getting to use Charisma for Bardic Lore is basically an SF1e profession.

You already want Dex and Cha, so you are making some sacrifices for a decent RK.

I don't expect my skill monkey character to have any abilities maxed out. I often compensate for that with equipment and ancestry options. This is kind of funny because I also use equipment and ancestry options to compensate for characters that are only good at one thing.

Kitusser wrote:

Also, Digital Diversion, really?

I love the flavor of it. After rereading it a few times, it seems the intended...

You can just do this by default with Deception already. On the charisma class this feat is literally useless unless your Cha is lower than your Int.

pauljathome wrote:

I've played a healing oriented envoy (Through Desperate Times) in several low level PFS adventures. In those, it seems to perform adequately if not wonderfully.

Get Em is NOT the only directive. I've got a fair bit of use out of Get in There.

My basic impression has been mostly "Meh". I've been playing most classes and enjoying my dragonkin Solarion and my mystics most so far

I'm playing a Through Desperate Times safety inspector envoy that uses the watch out feat, and has skills and a boom pistol for taking out hazards. It's been fun and effective, although my definition of effective is likely an anathema for anyone optimizing for max damage.

I'm certain it's effective enough. I don't think the class is bad per se, but it seems like it could stand to be better when compared to other options, and the class has clear issues.

You'd need to adjust Get'Em! to become a Circumstance Bonus to Attacks if you keep it on a single target which makes it go from weak since it is +1 Status to +1 Circumstance, which makes it able to stack with Bard and Rhythm Mystic's Focus Spell. Yeah would a Bard + Envoy be a strong combo? Absolutely but lets not kid ourselves, it is required to make the Class at leas competitive when compared to an objectively stronger full casting classes. Not to mention Mystics also get a secondary class feature which makes them absurdly strong, maybe stronger then heal font clerics.

Yes definitely agree. I personally also think it should give a -1 Penalty to reflex saves and boost all attacks, not just strikes.

Kitusser wrote:

I feel that the issues with the class in the playtest weren't actually addressed and the class kind of feels worse.

This is my feeling for a lot of SF2e's content, tbh. Perhaps I'm not seeing the full picture, but it felt like the community across all discussion spaces gave pretty clear and unified feedback on a lot of issues that barely affected the final product at all. The Starfriends did include a few improvements here and there, including the Envoy's extra directives, but in my opinion it wasn't nearly enough.

When I posted my playtest notes for the Envoy, my assessment was pretty positive: compared to some other classes especially, the Envoy had some good things going for it, and the main problems that needed to be solved were feature bloat, a lack of directives, and a rigid action economy. The class got more directives, but retained all of its bloated features, and worst of all I think its action economy got even worse, with the new directive model making the class's actions far less flexible and lending themselves even more to fixed rotations. Really, switching to Commander-style tactics with allies doing things as reactions I think was a major step down, because it not only made the class a lot less unique in my eyes but also took away what I thought was a very interesting model of having persistent buffs interact with a variety of actions. Although the class does have some things going for it still, like the combination of watered-down tactics with a skill monkey chassis, I'm much more tempted now to recommend a Bard or Commander instead to provide a more fully-formed version of what the Envoy has to offer.

It's weird, cause they added more directives but also nerfed your main Directive, and then made them less flexible. I genuinely have no idea why the directives are once per turn, I don't see a way to really exploit this in a problematic way. They also barely added any more directives, like you still only get 3 by default, the Commander gains so many more Tactics, and they can swap them

I also agree with the criticism of making the Directives more like the commander. Maybe one or two options would be fine, but it would be nicer if they focused on giving actual buffs to teammates.

Then comes the fact the class is Cha based, but it's features barely interact with that.

Also locking them to CHA was bad, you then get the realization unlike Bard who has +4 CHA you also have +4 CHA but the difference if Bards get to use their +4 CHA to make Spell Attacks or Used as Spell DC. The Envoy needs to spent 1 Action minimal to match the attack bonus of a regular Martial.

Yeah it's very odd how the class has Cha as it's key stat but it really doesn't actually get much out of it. Like you could have a 14 Cha and the class wouldn't really be that different.

Get'Em! Being their primary Directive is a problem (Because it's so weak). You get +1 Status bonus to Strikes made against that one target, that one "only" target. Unlike Bard's Courageous Anthem which is a 60ft Emanation, effects all allies and gives them +1 Status Bonus to Attack Rolls against any target until the Spell runs out. It's also only 1 action similar to Get'Em!

It really shouldn't be weaker than Courageous Anthem or the Rhythm Mystic's Focus Spell. Those are full casters who can do so many other different things.

I think making directives not once per turn would go a long way, but still not enough.

I want to hear what people think about the Envoy now that it's fully released. I feel that the issues with the class in the playtest weren't actually addressed and the class kind of feels worse. The directives for subclasses are nice, but some of them are kind of bad and I don't think the inclusion of them is that much of an addition considering the fact that you can only use one Directive per turn.

The one Directive per turn thing just seems to be a backwards decision, especially when directives themselves aren't all that powerful. Including more directives at low levels while making you unable to use multiple seems like a poor decision. Also the fact that directives were nerfed by being one or two actions activities instead of one action activities that can be followed up by using the prescribed action for Lead By Example makes this even more questionable.

Get Em! being a status bonus, especially when Paizo explicitly stated they would make it a circumstance bonus is equally disappointing. Like other's have said, the Bard and Rhythm Mystic have basically a better version of this feature, providing a similar bonus at lower levels. The advantage of Get Em! is that the damage bonus scales (nice but it scales too slowly and not high enough), and that the Lead By Example effect lets you add your Cha bonus to your own strike as part of it (which is good but it's a selfish bonus and becomes less important at higher levels). This also leads into the issue of status bonuses to attacks being very common, which makes this feature redundant in a lot of parties. Moreover, it only applies to strikes and has no impact on Area Fire or Automatic Fire, which sucks.

It sort of just seems like this class's support capabilities are pretty much strictly worse than a spellcaster, or even the Commander. It gets to be a martial with a pretty good chassis, but it really feels like it needs better support capability.

I have a few pet peeves with Infosphere Director, like the fact it requires a decent Intelligence on an already MAD class. This isn't unusable, and I think it's actually one of the better subclasses despite this, but even the Bard gets to use Charisma for Bardic Lore. Also Digital Diversion, really?

That's all I can think of off the top of my head but I'd love to hear what others think and if they disagree/agree with my thoughts here.

… Deriven, you clearly still haven’t played the class. In the three hours since you said you would, all you’ve done is just rattle off feats independently of each other and given surface-level assessments of how they seem to you on paper, with no supporting experience. This is, as I recall, not the first time you’ve tried to fake credentials in this way, and in fact not even the first time you’ve done so for the Animist. All of this effort spent arguing could have been spent actually trying out an Animist in an adventure.

Just reading through and I feel that it hasn't really been mentioned that it is not necessary for the Animist to be equal or better than another class at certain niche's it just needs to be comparable or close. The Animist can be good at almost any niche with basically zero real investment.

I really like the fact they are good at spellshapes, and even the focus point spellshapes. But yeah I agree they just can't utilise them properly. Out of all the classes, I think Technomancer needed 4 spellslots per/lvl more than any caster.

I also agree that they don't interact with tech as much as they should. I sort of want them to feel like a hacker class, and not just them hacking spells.

Both Viper and ServoShell definitely need some way to get spell gems and minions.

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.