Kitusser's page

The Raven Black wrote:

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

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

Lmao, I didn't even see this part.

Kitusser wrote:

ScooterScoots wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Total Package wrote:

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

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

Alchemist Feats:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spellstrike is plenty good as is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SuperParkourio wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Kitusser wrote:

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

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

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

I have explained myself countless times for month.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kalaam wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Untamed Druid falls back on their casting.

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

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

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

Kitusser wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was not talking about legendary armour proficiency.

Heavy armor isn't, legendary heavy armor is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kitusser wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John R. wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ascalaphus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teridax wrote:

Thematically speaking, the Ranger class has been a mess throughout tabletop system editions, because they were originally made to emulate the character of Aragorn/Strider from the Lord of the Rings, only to morph into this mishmash of quasi-Druid, terrain master, archer, beast master, monster hunter, and melee dual-wielder all in one.

You are operating from a false premise.

The 1st Ed AD&D ranger was more "Jack the Giant Killer" and nature-based fighter/tracker (as the paladin was a church-based LG fighter) with a small dash of Aragorn (mostly use of scrying devices in a nod toward crystal balls being similar to the palantiri from the Lord of the Rings). The 2nd Ed AD&D ranger removed most of the Aragorn nods (other than tracking, which is not unique to Aragon in myth and fiction) and use of magic-user spells to add two-weapon fighting (based on Drizzt Do'Urden from the R. A. Salvatore books; the two-weapon fighting was a feature of drow elves [1st Ed AD&D Unearthed Arcana] and not originally part of the ranger class). D&D 3.x changed the damage bonus against "giant-class" enemies to more narrowly focused choices with the Favored Enemies mechanic. D&D 3.5 changed the two-weapon fighting to a choice between that and archery with the Combat Style feature; PF1 expanded on the available styles.

However, the ranger was always the "nature warrior" class; other than some specific "urban ranger" variants. The slayer is not nature-focused, it is monster-focused; allowing a class to be Van Helsing, Geralt, etc., which the ranger doesn't do very well.

"What is a Ranger?" has always been the million dollar question. The class is all over the place flavour wise over the editions of DND and Pathfinder. The only thing that people can really agree on is that it has something to do with nature. The idea of them being hunters is also pretty common.

Being a monster hunter also tends to overlap with being a "nature guy". The defining feature of PF2e's ranger is literally called "hunt prey".

Given that the "defining features" of the class are basically a level 1 Guardian Class feat (Punishing Shove being Str+2/6/12 is very close in damage progression to Stunt damage, especially since it can crit) and a worse MAP reduction than that of several other classes, I think that the main thing Daredevil needs is more/better class features.

The feats are nice enough, but what the class actually gets from its chassis is basically nothing.

Feats by themselves do not help in giving a class a unique feel, and that's why there are so many people seeing that Daredevil is a worse X/Y/Z, because there's nothing unique to him.

If the class is gonna have such a strong identity in Press actions, I genuinely think it should be able to use them when at 0 MAP. It would be a unique and powerful feature, and the class could revolve around it.

This ability was one of my two main mechanical concerns about the class before the playtest document dropped. I think this deserves its own thread since the quarry mechanic is such a big part of the class.

Mark Quarry relies on three conditions:

1. You must be facing at least one enemy whose level is equal to or higher than yours.
2. You must find signs of the enemy in advance.
3. You must be in a situation where you can take 10 minutes to use Mark Quarry.

This works just fine for monster hunting quests, which makes sense for a monster hunter class. In other situations though, these conditions might not always get fulfilled. This makes it such that the slayer can't reliably use all of its features in all campaigns.

The first condition will probably be met fairly frequently. However, combats where every enemy is lower level than the party can still be serious threats and such will be encountered decently often. Even if the reason there are no enemies of at least PL is that the fight is supposed to be a cake walk (e.g. to show how far the party has come or for environmental storytelling), that just means that the slayer doesn't get to use all of its fun toys in that encounter.

Conditions 2 and 3 are an issue more consistently. In my experience, it is very common to be ambushed or otherwise have very little information going into a quest. A pretty common quest premise in all of our campaigns has been that we have to go to a place and fetch something. We know that there is likely to be danger but don't know the exact nature of it. In this case, it's really a coin flip whether or not it's realistic to find the necessary information before something attacks. If you either find out about the enemy when you're already too near to take 10 minutes to mark it or it finds you before you find it, you might have to enter a fight without having a quarry. You might even be tracking a quarry only to run into a different enemy eligible for Mark Quarry before you see your actual quarry.

If I had to guess, I'd...

Yeah it's going to lead to campaigns where you cant use your main stuff for a portion of encounters that is just way too high. In the type of game I play in, it would be like 40% of encounters at least that I wouldn't be able to use this.

It also just encourages DMs to throw boss encounters at players constantly, which I think is bad.

Claxon wrote:

If you don't trust your players to not metagame

It is not really a matter of trust. Consistently making the same decision you would make if you did not know something when you do is basically impossible, so of course I do not trust anyone (including myself) to do that. And even if it were possible, it would be aggressively anti-fun.

It is obviously not possible for a player to completely avoid knowledge that their character does not have. But it is always worthwhile IMO to do so as far as possible, especially in cases such as these where it is super easy.

Tridus wrote:

A lot of the time, just looking at the token/mini/listening to a description tells you that. Constructs are largely obvious from the description.

There is a world of difference between seeing something that looks like a Construct and deciding to assume that it is a Construct, and the GM effectively confirming (or perhaps more significantly, denying) it.

I honestly just think people care too much about metagaming overall. Like yeah, if you're just googling statblocks for each monster you fight, it's a problem. But if you already knew the info in your mind because of a previous campaign, I honestly just don't care enough to make the person have to pretend like they don't know what they know. It's just irritating to do and doesn't really improve the game. It's really easy to justify in game, and it's only a problem when people intentionally abuse it (which is going to be problem whether you allow it or not).

For the fights you actually want secret information, you can just use unique statblocks or whatever.

I genuinely just find that people knowing more things works out better gameplay wise and is more fun.

I also think that if something is obviously x creature type, the GM should confirm it. Why not? If it's obvious it should be part of the description.

I mean, it would be earned because I was assuming you'll still need adrenaline to benefit from the +0 MAP press action.

I also think the class needs to be more durable regardless. It feels too squishy right now.

But besides that, I think the problem is that the press actions in the class feel balanced taking into account that these are going to be used for a class that reduces MAP on press actions (much like fire impulses which are weirdly weaker than impulses from other elements of its level, all likely because fire kineticists have access to fire impulse junction). Flying Hurdle Stunt and Forceful Kickoff Stunt have really meh effects on a failure, when press actions are supposed to be actions that tend to be stronger than the norm because they require you to be on MAP to use them, but that even on a failure have a decent effect.

Another example; Pressing Pummel is a Power Attack-adjacent feat that has the press trait for no apparent reason. Like, it still costs 2 actions, has no failure and critical failure effects, and on top of everything is a flourish. Rebounding Fall Stunt has both the press and risky traits which seems extra weird when the prefered action rotation for this class seems to be risky action immediately followed by a press action. This happens with a ton of other feats in the class.

The 0 MAP Press action thing is gonna be hard to work with current Adrenaline because a lot of the risky actions eat into the MAP, and Adrenaline only lasts until the start of your next turn. So I was thinking things would need to change to accommodate it somehow. But then I feel the class starts feeling a lot like the Swashbuckler. I think Adrenaline needs to function differently, or just be axed, at least for the 0 MAP Press thing.

Also I'm not really seeing the usefulness of the Risky Press actions. They do give Adrenaline before you take the action I think, but that's all you're gonna really get out of it with 1 action left and max MAP. Especially if you're already using an earlier action to gain Adrenaline frequently.

And yeah it's really strange to see those press actions that don't actually seem any better than the stuff they seem to be based off of. Also, I don't really like how a lot of the class is just the same thing other classes can do but with a slightly different flavour to it. Like a lot of the press actions are just variations of different feats.

Edit:

If going in a more momentum direction, the class could get buffs based on successful checks of some kind (could be successful athletics manoeuvres or something), like entering a stance they can advance as they succeed on more checks, but a failed check has a chance to reset it, or downgrade it, a crit fail is guaranteed to do so. A vague idea but it can fit the risk reward theme. Perhaps at stage 1 you get the 0 MAP press actions.

Just throwing ideas out there.

Kitusser wrote:

I'm very concerned about the Daredevil having a focus on press actions which is inherently going to be at lower accuracy. I just don't like it as it currently is. I feel the features are fairly underwhelming and the class just feels all over the place.

It sort of feels like the class should fighter levels of of accuracy to offset press action lowered numbers.

I was personally thinking that they could ignore the limitation of using press actions only when under MAP. There could be some limitation around it if necessary. Also it eats into the risky flavour, but there surely is a way to work that in. Though I'm not convinced the class being centred around risk is a good idea anyway.

Tbh I would totally dig the first press action of each turn being at +0 MAP. However, it would totally remove the "risk" factor of the class (though its not like I think they truly managed to represent "risk" with the class honestly).

Perhaps it needs to be earned somehow? I don't really know, it's hard to mechanically represent "risk", and I don't exactly like mechanics that encourage behaviour that is bad for teamwork.

I don't really like the Adrenaline mechanic that much to be honest.

Maybe the class could be more durable to begin with, but using a Press action at 0 MAP gives enemies a +1 circumstance bonus to hit you? Or maybe if you miss the attack you are Off-Guard?

There has got to be some way to keep the riskiness with this in a satisfactory way.

Or perhaps the class can be about "momentum" and not necessarily about taking risks.

In Paizo's defense, does there need to be though?

I think new classes should be filling new mechanical and thematic niches. This game already has a lot of classes so adding some classes that feel really samey just feels like class bloat.

I don't think the theme needs to be entirely unique or not replicable by other classes, but there needs to be something there I feel. Like for example, adding Mesmerist would be fine even though you could already build a mental focused character because Mesmerist is entirely mental focused and it's unique for a class concept instead of a mechanical one. Whereas the Daredevil's theme is already similar to other classes.

I can accept a similar theme but at least make the mechanics novel. The Daredevil feels like it's doing the same things other people are doing, but slightly different. I think it should have it's identity lean more into the press actions, and it be some kind of dive tank. I wouldn't mind it's press actions being at 0 MAP. This could be the class about on-hit effects that mostly aren't damage, combined with high mobility.

I'm very concerned about the Daredevil having a focus on press actions which is inherently going to be at lower accuracy. I just don't like it as it currently is. I feel the features are fairly underwhelming and the class just feels all over the place.

I dislike features that are super reliant on the GM, so I'm concerned about the prop mechanic.

Many of the press actions have critical failure effects which I really don't like, sure some of them are risky, but this is on a press action, so afterwards, your MAP is going to be at -10, and you're only going to have one action left over so I don't see the value as it only lasts until the start of your next turn.

The class is lacking decent reactions, so I see people MC into Fighter or something.

I don't like how Slayer basically doesn't function if you aren't fighting a higher or equal level opponent, if you're fighting humanoids, or if you just didn't get to use the feature due to no info. I feel this class pushes DMs into throwing high level foes at the party which I don't think needs to be encouraged.

These classes can work with a lot of changes I think, but I think these changes need to be radical as to be mechanically unique, more so for Daredevil who doesn't feel unique in the slightest.

I think the adrenaline mechanic should just go personally, and the class should just have some really nice and unique benefits off the bat like being able to do press actions at 0 MAP or something.

My reasons for thinking spells are specifically called out in the errata example is from this sentence: “ The two instances of cold damage come from different spells, so each sets off cold weakness individually for an additional 30 damage.” I understand and can see that a lot people don’t find the “different spells” to be the compelling rules language and that it is possible that the word spell could be exchanged with any variable like runes. More clarity there would be excellent.

I'd like stronger language there to make that conclusion. I feel that if your interpretation was intended it would've been much more explicit.

Kitusser wrote:

It's important when people are making hard claims about the rules without supporting it with evidence, but sure I'll stop.

I was citing the rules from the start and you just non-stop claim that I don't. I won't waste any more of my time on you.

I'm making an exception for this thread because this person is spreading misinformation.

I didn't say you didn't cite any rules, just that none of the rules you cited actually back you up, but sure, lets examine exactly what rules you cited and pretend like I didn't already address it.

Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties

Spell (or similar effect) damage roll = damage die of effect + bonuses + penalties

A rule about how to break down a damage roll. Where does it say that named bonuses aren't a separate instance? Where does it say that "damage rolls are for one damage type and one effect"?

As with checks, you might add circumstance, status, or item bonuses to your damage rolls, but if you have multiple bonuses of the same type, you add only the highest bonus of that type. Again like checks, you may also apply circumstance, status, item, and untyped penalties to the damage roll, and again you apply only the greatest penalty of a specific type but apply all untyped penalties together

A quote referring to multiple bonuses of the same type, and saying that you can add or subtract different named or unnamed bonuses to a roll. Again nothing here backs up anything you've been saying.

Remember, this thread is for presenting how you directly interpret the rules around an instance of damage now that we have the given errata and example, not to argue about whether someone else’s reading of those rules is correct. We want to see how many different ways people are reading this here, as I think that will help us, the community, ask for clarification that will address the points of divergence. There are other places for debating how it should work best.

It's important when people are making hard claims about the rules without supporting it with evidence, but sure I'll stop.

I pretty much agree with your example and conclusions. Though I disagree that runes are part of the same instance, this isn't indicated anywhere in the rules, and considering it is additional damage and not a modification of the weapon damage I don't think it can be considered the same instance. Cold Iron modifies the weapon's physical damage, whereas the Flaming rune is adding an additional 1d6.

The errata did not differentiate between spells and other sources of damage, it merely used spells as an example. I feel if it were only intended for spells the errata would've made that clear.

pauljathome wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Yeah I don't understand what the problem is here

The problem is that

1) The Foundry module makes it very, very easy for a GM to ignore the rules
2) At least two GMs in this thread have said that when they use the module they ignore the rules. And I know that I've personally met at least 2 other GMs who use this module and ignore the rules.

Not really, though. The macro gives you all the relevant skills (or all of them if you don't have something targeted), shows potential modifiers, shows different DCs for subsequent attempts, and packages it all up so you can see it very quickly.

People "ignore the rules" on this because it's one of the most house ruled sections of the game for a reason: the rules aren't very fun. People ignored increasing the DC of subsequent attempts long before the macro, and some people didn't even realize that was a rule until the macro showed it to them. Ditto with failures meaning no more attempts: lots of people very deliberately ignore that, which has nothing to do with the macro at all.

Otherwise, what other rule is being ignored here? The remaster changed the wording of RK to make it clearer that the GM and players are supposed to discuss it before rolling anything. The macro doesn't change that, and the fact that the wording had to be changed to tell people "don't gotcha your players" says that GMs were doing exactly that. Which was going on long before the macro existed.

At the end of the day the macro is just a tool to present information to the GM. It can't stop GMs that are being antagonistic from doing so.

I've never liked the RK rules in this game, it's like it punishes you for using the skill if you run it RAW, there are so many limitations and downsides that it doesn't feel worth using. The misinformation being a big one, especially against a strong foe who has a rare or unique tag and has some gimmick or weakness that you're trying to find.

I genuinely don't think RK works very well against the rarity system and against high level foes. Plus needing to invest in so many skills just sucks. I like how it works in Lancer where you can just Scan and basically just get all non-secret info on the statblock. I find combat is more fun when people can make informed decisions.

I feel for combat, there should just be a monster knowledge skill that works on every monster, just for RK. There should be skill feats for guaranteed knowledge, or there should just be guaranteed knowledge with different proficiency ranks of the skill when rolling (So like you still roll, but on any result but say a crit fail you get some info). Lore skills would still have lowered DCs, and normal RK skills would also still work for applicable enemies.

Isn't the clarification given to the foundry people by paizo enough?

From my understanding that is:
"An instance of damage is a source of damage with a discrete damage type".

So:
"+5 damage" not an instance.
"+5 cold damage" an instance.

I'm mainly talking about the errata itself. The discord clarification is not part of the errata. Most people who use the errata won't even be aware of these discord messages for their games.

Also this discord screenshot just really highlights the issue with the errata. It doesn't actually tell us what an instance actually is, and it's so needlessly convoluted that it needs further clarification from unofficial discord screenshots. This is excluding the balance issues it's creating.

Kitusser wrote:

Errenor wrote:

How could they possibly be one instance of damage if they are of different types? The errata shows that even damage chunks of the same type are different instances if they are from different sources.

By your argument, if they are still part of the damage roll, they are the same instance because:

Errenor wrote:

Each damage roll is only one number by definition.

You don't understand my argument then. Damage rolls are for one damage type and for one effect (because each effect potentially, and sometimes practically, can have its own damage bonuses and penalties).

Adding up of course still eventually happens because chars don't have different types of hit points, but it doesn't change what individual damage rolls are.

You're literally just making up your fan fiction of the rules. Damage rolls are clearly not for only one damage type because bonuses can be of a different damage type, and spells can deal multiple damage types. One damage roll can have multiple instances for the purpose of weakness and resistance in this errata.

You keep making these definitive statements that aren't backed up by the rules of the game.

I struggle to understand your argument because you either are not communicating it effectively, or it's just nonsensical.

How could they possibly be one instance of damage if they are of different types? The errata shows that even damage chunks of the same type are different instances if they are from different sources.

By your argument, if they are still part of the damage roll, they are the same instance because:

Each damage roll is only one number by definition.

Wow. It's a good thing I don't need to convince you of anything. You can continue to be ... that.

You reply to my comments and call me wrong, then after getting pressed your response is to say "I don't need to convince you of anything." If you had actual points then you could say that, but you aren't disproving what I said.

Damage rolls are per effect and so per instance as in this errata. You didn't mix them before even for the same damage type (maybe in the end adding same damage types) and you definitely don't do this now. Each damage roll is only one number by definition. There's nothing to substantiate. It's what definition means.

There is quite literally nothing you've cited in the rules that backs up what you are saying.

A bonus that is unnamed is still part of the damage roll calculation, otherwise it wouldn't get doubled on a crit, or halved on a successful save. Like looking through how damage is calculated in the rules even as per the text you quoted, there is nothing in between the calculation and determining how resistances and weaknesses apply that talks about damage bonuses that aren't named, in fact, the only place this is mentioned is in the section that talks about applying untyped penalties to a roll, which is grouped into all the other penalties. Since the rules omit this for bonuses, the closest analogue is what it says about penalties so it's reasonable to apply it the same way as you would a penalty considering these function identically other than the fact it is a negative.

There's a reason I'm asking you for a citation, because by your argument the current errata doesn't actually do anything because nothing would count as a seperate instance anyway. This is especially true when you're saying that a physical damage dragon instinct barbarian's bonus would also not apply. If that doesn't apply (an unnamed bonus), and named bonuses don't apply, then what does? There could be a rule I'm missing, and since you're so confident I feel like there has to be some kind of rule here I don't know of, but if it exists, you haven't cited it.

There is a screenshot from Discord floating around that is from Foundry after they have talked to Paiso about more clarification.

Here is a text variant from that. each - is its own message

Encaminhada said wrote:

- we got a couple of clarifications on the clarification already

- I think we can distill an actual rule

- What i distilled was that an instance is some quantity of damage from a source that has an explicit damage type.

- So weapon specialication damage and vicious swing dice aren't instances, but inventor's offencive boost is--even if you make it the same damage type as your weapon

- if sneak added nd6 slashing damage that'd be something

- but not nd6 damage where the damage type is inferred somehow.

- We also asked about situations of combining damage, like with flurry of blows

- in that case all source information is lost. and it's down to damage types

Amazing how the errata that's supposed to clarify what an instance is still doesn't clarify what an instance is and needs further clarification from unofficial discord screenshots.

Kitusser wrote:

I don't agree that's this is clear in this change at all. A Dragon Barbarian with bludgeoning damage on their rage using a bludgeoning weapon is going to be double hit with resistance and weakness. This whole errata is about multiple instances of the same damage.

You can not agree.

Kitusser wrote:

Quote:

As for sorcerers, what do you mean, 'prevent'? With 'additional' damage, especially of different types we may have instances. But damage bonuses are never instances, that was always clear:
"As with checks, you might add circumstance, status, or item bonuses to your damage rolls, but if you have multiple bonuses of the same type, you add only the highest bonus of that type. Again like checks, you may also apply circumstance, status, item, and untyped penalties to the damage roll, and again you apply only the greatest penalty of a specific type but apply all untyped penalties together."
Even if some new effect just creates such bonus (status or circumstance most probably) of the same type as base one, that's still not a new instance.
That means Sorcerous Potency never creates another 'instance'.

Nothing you've quoted here suggests that a named or unnamed bonus doesn't count as a new instance of damage for the purpose of this errata.

Do you think I'm talking about multiple instances of the same named bonus? I'm not.

But not here. Everything suggests this, it's the core of game mechanics, bonuses go here:

Melee damage roll = damage die of weapon or unarmed attack + Strength modifier + bonuses + penalties
Spell (or similar effect) damage roll = damage die of effect + bonuses + penalties
(and ranged rolls too)
It's one number, there's no instances in this case. Sorcerous Potency does exactly this.

It's not merely not agreeing, you haven't substantiated that point at all.

Do you think an instance is the whole damage roll? The errata makes it clear that it is not, the instances are what make up the damage roll. You aren't citing any rules to define the term, it's pure conjecture. The only rule you cited had no relevance to the point.

Why is a named bonus not a separate instance, but an unnamed one is? What supports this in the rules?

The current rules of the game don't define what exactly an instance is, the errata also does not do it precisely. The whole point of the errata was to clarify what the rules of the game are, and they don't point either way in this situation.

If you can provide a citation, or strong enough argument backed up with textual support I would change my mind. But you have not.

Your argument is literally contradicted by the errata. You say that a dragon barbarians physical damage increase would not count as an instance, and if that was the case, the example in the errata wouldn't work either.

Ok, 'certain barbarians' with different damage types, yes, I suppose. '+X damage' ('X additional damage on melee Strikes') still no. And if it's a specific type damage on a weapon with matching type, I'd add it too.

I don't agree that's this is clear in this change at all. A Dragon Barbarian with bludgeoning damage on their rage using a bludgeoning weapon is going to be double hit with resistance and weakness. This whole errata is about multiple instances of the same damage.

As for sorcerers, what do you mean, 'prevent'? With 'additional' damage, especially of different types we may have instances. But damage bonuses are never instances, that was always clear:
"As with checks, you might add circumstance, status, or item bonuses to your damage rolls, but if you have multiple bonuses of the same type, you add only the highest bonus of that type. Again like checks, you may also apply circumstance, status, item, and untyped penalties to the damage roll, and again you apply only the greatest penalty of a specific type but apply all untyped penalties together."
Even if some new effect just creates such bonus (status or circumstance most probably) of the same type as base one, that's still not a new instance.
That means Sorcerous Potency never creates another 'instance'.

Nothing you've quoted here suggests that a named or unnamed bonus doesn't count as a new instance of damage for the purpose of this errata.

Do you think I'm talking about multiple instances of the same named bonus? I'm not.

Outside of deliberately giving weaknesses out, doubling or tripling g up on damage types really isn’t a great idea because it means you will have encounters where that weapon is all but useless, (or at least the same a weapon with no property runes on it at all), while having having different ones can mean triggering different weaknesses, and thus triggering inherent weaknesses more often.

Like even if this was rarely useful, it would still be a massive problem because of how much it warps the encounters it's effective in. PF2e strays away from people being able to be so effective in a combat niche that when it comes up the encounter is basically just completely trivialised. Not to say there isn't any of this, but when it comes to getting insane damage output it's just not really a thing.

It's also just not that hard to actually do (double dipping at least), and resistance isn't common enough to be an issue. It's not exactly like Flaming runes are bad.

You can't just excuse the weakness granting stuff either. Because this change is going to push people into using those options. When these features are used it stops becoming every now and then and starts becoming most encounters. Then there are the characters who can easily mess with damage types to just adapt to weaknesses that they come across.

Coming from the person who thought 2d8 damage per spell rank was too overpowered, I dont know how you can't see the issue with this. This is an example of something that's actually powerful in its niche, and not in a small way, and there are methods of turning it from something circumstantial to something ever present.

You can't really use the argument that it requires a lot of optimisation, because that's kind of part of the the issue.