First, in combat. It's one more save. That's all. It's beneficial, yes, as it does not worsen the poison on a Failure, but it still would on a Critical Failure, and the 30' cone would heal all creatures, not just allies, inside it. Given the cooldown until it can be used on a given person again, you could easily hit people who don't need the healing to help an ally with Poison damage, and put them on cooldown for the healing as well.
Outside of combat, the cooldown makes it very not OP. Why? Because most poisons last 6 rounds. Now, not all do, and on the ones that last a long time, it is very helpful. But most do, and so all it grants is one bonus save.
With diseases, yes, it could hit OP levels, in theory, and I do agree with your proposed house rule of a total of one use of Torrent in the Blood per affliction.
Another couple of things to consider before thinking it's OP. First, it only affects one poison or disease, so if the ally has two or more on them, it only hits one, and then the ally is on cooldown. Second, many enemies that can apply poison can just reapply poison. This makes the timing of when to use Torrent crucial, and giving PCs decision points is, IMO, a good thing
It just feels REALLY strange that if you want to spray a whole bunch of bullets it doesn't matter at all if you've ever seen the weapon, know how to use it, are good with it, etc.
In practice it really isn't a huge deal. Soldiers are the only characters who seem to regularly use AoE weapons other than grenades. And if you're planning on using AoE weapons as a non soldier there is lots of incentive to take the soldier Archetype anyway (especially at higher levels).
It doesn't matter. Even in IRL, you rarely aim something like an M-60. The machine gunner is suppressing the enemy and likely hitting some. Riflemen aim and make direct fire kills.
Anyone can jump behind a machine gun and just hold down the trigger and move it left and right. Now, they might suck at reloading it without training, or clearing a jam, so having area fire work off of a DC makes a lot more sense than it would to have it be tied to anything else.
I agree with Finoan for all the reasons stated by Finoan. However, as a mostly GM, I would add one other reason to interpret it that way: enemies.
There are quite a few monsters with abilities that use the same trigger, and I don't think many players would want those abilities to trigger on a monster's Strike as well.
I find this conversation interesting in a lot of ways, the biggest of those being game historical.
What I find interesting is that if you look back at 1E D&D, you find why the big weapons have larger damage dice.
They are slower to use.
See, back in 1E, everyone rolled, I think it was a d10+dex mod (which was lower) for Initiative. That was when you first went, and when you went next was determined by what you did.
If you cast a spell, your spell had a casting time, and it actually resolved when that casting time ended, and if you were hit before then, you lost the spell.
But, every *weapon* also had a speed rating, and the bigger it was, the more time that was. A greatsword had I 9, I think, and a dagger had a 2.
So, if you are using that greatsword and go at 10, and a person with a dagger also goes at 10, it sequence would be:
You and the dagger guy at 10, dagger at 12, dagger at 14, dagger at 16, dagger at 18, and then you at 19.
Bigger weapons traded attacks for damage, and it was a thing you had to think about. If you brought a greatsword to a fight with a couple of rogues, you might well be poked to death before swinging a second time.
And if you brought a polearm, I'd feel bad for you.
But, while quite realistic, it was a cumbersome system to use, and was eventually tossed, but the damage dice were not changed, and that brings us to 50 years later, where people argue, 'why does a large and slow weapon that is made larger and slower not do more damage?', and that just amuses me.
Now, if I were going to bring something back, weapon-wise, from the past, it would be the penalty for someone with a reach weapon to hit someone who was right next to them, but I suspect a lot of people would not like that.
The duration on this spell, and every Incarnate spell, is always 'until the end of your next turn.' This is because when you finish the casting, it arrives - and then *it* does something.
At the end of your next turn, the spell ends, and *it* departs, doing something as it does so.
Your spell just summons it. Your spell doesn't do anything else. It does those other things, and they expire as is normal.
It works the same with any summon. If you summon a viper at low level, and it bites some goblin and poisons it, and you don't sustain the summon the next round, the poison doesn't go away on its own.
First, most encounters in a Mythic game will still be non-Mythic encounters, and so Mythic Resiliance will not apply to them at all.
Second, many of the best debuffs target Will (though not all of them), and 48.7 percent of the monsters in the game have Fortitude as a high save, and only 18 percent of creatures have Will as the high save. Mythic Reslience states to put it on the *high* save first, so 80 percent of the time, MR will do nothing against will-based debuffs.
The only encounters that matter are the difficult ones. Unless their table is throwing non mythic severe and extreme encounters at them regularly it doesn't matter if most encounters are non mythic.
Will is often the second best save. At level 13+ mythic creatures will have a minimum 1 instance of resilience (typically fort) and likely have a second instance (typically will). The last thing you want to do is go into a fight that matters and learn that suddenly all your important spells had the incapacitation trait added to them.
So instead of playing a debuffer, the smart play is to keep an AoE incap spell or two for mass non-mythic mooks and focus your remaining spells on things that don't interact with saves. Buffs, illusions, walls, etc. Maybe reflex spells since it is the least common high save as you level and therefore the least likely to be covered by mythic resilience.
When it comes to saves, you are factually wrong. I've recently done a study of all 897 monsters in Remastered PF2, and one of the things I looked at was high saves.
Fort is by far the highest with 48.7 percent of monsters having it high, then Reflex at 38.3 percent, and then Will at 18 percent. It adds up to more than 100 percent because some monsters have two high saves, and the rarest combo (it was 2 or 3 monsters of 897) is Fort/Will.
Will is *by far* the least used save in the game, and is not often the highest or the second highest. It's also the one that people *think* is highest because when the enemy makes a save, even when it's the low save, it's the most impactful.
There is just no factual basis to argue otherwise.
Now, when it comes to encounters, sure, the most dangerous ones in a Mythic game will be the Mythic encounters, and MR comes into play there. But, to say that none of the Non-mythic encounters will be dangerous, is, IMO, a stretch. Maybe that's the case at your table, but I think having tools to deal with those encounters is also valuable.
I am not saying that debuffing only is a good idea for a caster in any game, especially a Mythic one, as every caster should have a toolbag for different style encounters. I am saying that I feel that debuff will work, especially Will-based debuffing, even when you're in a Mythic encounter, given the way that Paizo has designed nearly 900 monsters, and I will be keeping my study up to date as more are released.
For the start of it, the crit fail to fail part, since it indicates any religion, yes, I think it would apply.
However, for the last sentence, I would read 'your own faith' as the faith of that PC. So, if that PC worshiped Desna, it would apply to Desna (and I might let it also apply to Shelyn and Sarenrea), but it would not apply to Ababar Rovagug, for example.
I still remember we hit level 12 and our wizard summoned a dragon to fight a dragon to keep up with its movement. Got wrecked by its fear aura, then couldn't land a hit flying and attacking once. Just a total waste of a spell slot. That wizard never used that spell again in any campaign on any caster character.
This is a matter of expectations. A spell should be just part of the solution versus a boss monster. If a summoned dragon was a match for an on level dragon then the game would be broken like every previous edition.
Of course it doesn't help that spells like Synesthesia and Wall of Stone exist. Which do have the power to swing an encounter all by themselves.
I would be fine if summon dragon were part of the solution at high level, but it's so bad that it did nothing and has done nothing every time we use it. Once you start reaching the 3 to 4 or more levels difference in what you're fighting, the summons become less and less able to do anything when cast unless you're using them for extra spells or some special ability.
Any combat function doesn't work with the high level spread. The level spread makes mooks into bosses and bosses into god-like enemies that can't be touched by the summoned monster even with the highest level slot used. I feel a max level summon spell should be a whole lot better than they are.
This scenario has me curious.
If your wizard was level 12, he's using Rank 6 spells, and Summon Dragon gives four choices for what it can tag there:
River Drake is clearly the weakest, and I doubt it was the choice.
Young Omen Dragon is Occult and cannot be chosen by an Arcane caster, so it's also out.
That leaves 2: Young Black and Young Brass.
Both would have good options to engage outside of the Fear aura of the enemy dragon.
Black has Stinking Cloud, which has a 120' cast range, so it can be used outside of the 90' fear aura, and on a successful save, the enemy dragon would be Sickened 1. It also has Slow and True Strike, so it could have closer in options once the Fear wore off after a round or two, and could be used to try and draw Reactive Strike or set up aerial flanking.
But Brass is even better! It has Earthbind, which has the same 120 range, and on a *successful* save, makes the flying creature descend 120 feet, though most of its spells are defensive. It has the same ability to potentially draw RS as Black, but it also has Mirror Image. On top of that, it could cast Resist Energy (against the enemy dragon's breath weapon energy type) on one of your party.
If your enemy dragon was the Adult tier (which is around level 11), both Black and Brass would be hitting with around a 12, or 10 with flanking, which is not bad for a summons, and would be able to soak 4-6 hits, or 2-3 crits, from the enemy dragon.
If you were fighting a Level 16ish Ancient, yeah, they'd be bad, but what would you expect? If you could summon a monster at level 12 that could go toe-to-toe with a level 16 boss, well, that would be seriously overpowered.
It doesn't seem to me to be a summons issue, but either an expectations issue, or maybe poor tactics. I would lean towards the first, given how you have talked about your group in the past.
You're focusing on casting debuffs in a mythic campaign. This is a grievous mistake. Mythic resilience will eat you alive.
I don't think it's a mistake for two reasons.
First, most encounters in a Mythic game will still be non-Mythic encounters, and so Mythic Resiliance will not apply to them at all.
Second, many of the best debuffs target Will (though not all of them), and 48.7 percent of the monsters in the game have Fortitude as a high save, and only 18 percent of creatures have Will as the high save. Mythic Reslience states to put it on the *high* save first, so 80 percent of the time, MR will do nothing against will-based debuffs.
Is it something to be aware of? Absolutely! Is it a "grievous" mistake? No, I don't think so. If it stacked with Incapacitation, I would feel differently, but it does not.
They might not know the specific spell, and they might not know how it works, but the sequence of: person casts spell, nothing seems to happen, then an ally attacks another ally for no reason would strongly indicate mental control was being used.
Can you expand on the part "nothing seems to happen", because a lot of stuff happens in a combat round and all of that could have been influenced by the unknown spell, e.g. all attacks are influenced by Bless, Benediction, Bane, Malediction, Heroism, Protection, Calm, ... .
Unless an ally behaves obviously weird, there is no indication that they're under mental control. Otherwise, are you having people roll Sense Motive when they're fleeing from a non-magical effect to check if magic is involved?
For example: Enemy spellcaster casts an unknown spell, then another enemy yells some orders (End it!), and three of your allies start running away. Would you suspect that the spellcaster used a Fear spell?
Or: Enemy spellcaster casts an unknown spell, then suddenly another creature appears and stabs you in the back (Rogue ending his Invisibility). Would you suspect that the spellcaster summoned a creature or illusion? Would you have them spend an action for Perception to check whether it's an illusion?
Because I get the feeling that people do a lot of metagaming here when it comes to spellcasting.
Similarly, I do not think that Subtle spell makes a difference to those people, because they'd just argue that obviously suspicious behavior from their ally makes them think mental magic is involved, regardless of not having seen a spell being cast previously. They'll probably say something like "They might not know the specific spell, and they might not know how it works, but the sequence of: spellcaster seemingly does nothing for a round, nothing seems to happen, then an ally runs away for no reason would strongly indicate mental magic was being used."
Sure, I can share my thoughts here, and again, I want to echo Quid Est's thoughts about "attacking an ally is the obviously weird part" as something I agree with.
In PF2E, every spell - unless Subtle is used or the spell says otherwise in its entry - gives off some sort of visual and/or sound-based display, per Player Core. IE, if someone casts a spell, everyone around knows a spell is cast.
Now, that visual display can be flavored by the caster however they see fit. If a cleric of Desna casts Bless, maybe a field of butterflies comes down and fills the area of the spell to guide the cleric's allies; and maybe Fear cast by a worshipper of Zon-Kuthon might make the targets see elements of body horror happening to themselves in their mind.
But with every spell, the exact flavoring is endless. However, in universe, that flavoring is part of the spell casting.
So, if you see someone cast a spell, and some mass of blackness rolls over your friends, and they scream and run away, yes, you could hazard a guess that the spell made them afraid.
Now, there are a lot of spells that have Frightened as a rider, so you won't know *which* spell it is unless you spend an action to Identify Spell, but anyone can be trained in magical traditions and have access to that ability.
Your Invisibility example is less of a yes, since, as far as I know, you can't Summon people, so illusion might not come to mind for someone in the world, but if someone Interacts with a typical illusion, they do get a chance to disbelieve it.
The key thing here, IMO, is that when you, an ally, or an enemy Casts a Spell in a fight, or even in a social encounter, everyone *knows* that you have done so. It is clear and obvious, so with the Control example, the people in the battle would see:
a) A spell is cast;
b) Nothing seems to happen - no explosions, no walls just appearing, no one getting sick, or becoming scared, no wounds healing, etc.
c) A moment later, one of their allies just stabs another ally.
Then they might suspect mind-controlling magic, which is known to exist in the world. Now, they would not know what spell, how to end it, or anything like that, and they might even be wrong - maybe the ally was a secret spy and is betraying them without magic.
To actually know more, they'll need to spend actions and/or resources to find out more.
Is there metagaming involved? Sure, you could say that, but I'm someone who doesn't care about metagaming, and who also thinks that just about everything you do in an RPG (or most games for that matter) is metagaming, so that doesn't concern me.
Now, the Subtle Metamagic hides all of this. If you cast a spell with Subtle, then there are no signs, and in that case, no someone should not suspect magic was being used, unless they had some sort of special sense that let them detect it, and those seem to be very rare. That's the benefit of Subtle, to hide casting, but at an action cost.
I agree with Quid Est's first paragraph. While someone would need to have the right feats, etc, to identify the specific spell, they would still know that a spell was cast.
If you cast a spell, nothing seems to happen, then my friend starts acting strange; it's not a large leap for someone in a fantasy world to assume the spell caused the behavior.
They might not know the specific spell, and they might not know how it works, but the sequence of: person casts spell, nothing seems to happen, then an ally attacks another ally for no reason would strongly indicate mental control was being used.
I think you are both wrong, depending on what level your character is.
You are correct that you start out at 2d8+4 (weapon damage)+4 Spirit damage from the Immanence, as you have two weapon dice.
When you Transcend, the base damage gains a die and goes to 3d8+4 (weapon damage type). The +2 from the transcence goes to a +4, and this would stay per weapon die, making it a +8.
If you were at least level 10, which you did not tell us, then you would be correct, as the bonus damage would go to +6 per die, for a total of +12.
I think this ability is written quite clearly and is simple to understand. It's written the same way as, for example, Vicious Swing. It's the normal language for "This ability gets stronger as you level."
I don't think any of us could answer that question.
I would say to remember that all we have for gear are the core books. There may very well be options for that down the road. SF2 launched 8 weeks ago. There's going to be a lot more content as time passes.
I also tell players the skills the scenario says they can use, but I also tell them that if they want to try other skills, they can. I make a DC call based on how they describe using the skill in the case they want to try something outside the encounter stat block.
I'd agree with SuperParkourio. From reading over the two conditions, it seems to me that Fleeing mandates that the only action that can be taken is for the person fleeing from the person who made them afraid.
So, IMO, while you could control how they moved away from you, you could not make them do anything other than flee.
OP, though your approach is interesting, though metagaming, it does not really answer the title's question. Because you want to target the lowest save.
It seems, according to YuriP, that Will is indeed a good target as long as the opponent has no casting ability.
Which you often have to use RK to know.
As the OP,
First, the title is more of an eye catcher, and is intended to represent something a new player might ask. It's not something I'm asking for myself, as I already knew the answer, though I did not expect the gap between Fortitude and Will to be as high as it is.
I do find it interesting that you bring up Yuri's reply. His post is excellent and relatively accurate, though, in the end, it's guesswork. Very good guesswork, but guesswork.
I gave actual hard numbers for Paizo's adversaries for PF2E Remastered, as of the time of the post. That shows a clear, non-guesswork result that Will is the save that is most likely not to be the highest one.
Finoan makes an excellent point that Mindless and Construct do limit Will spells against those types of foes. However, even that does not change the basic facts of the research project.
As for Metagaming, yes, you could call my dataset metagaming. So what? Nearly everything one does in the combat part of the game is metagaming.
Make a party that is synergistic and covers each other's weaknesses? Metagaming.
Build your martials all around Trip and Reactive Strike? Metagaming.
Make sure your party has plenty of action denial? Metagaming.
Measure out your fireball precisely so it only gets enemies? Metagaming.
A crunchy system demands system knowledge to get good at, and system knowledge leads right into metagaming, and nothing is wrong with that at all.
I also think that the dataset could help newer players or more experienced players who are trying a spell caster for the first time. If you are not in a heavy undead or construct campaign (and again, that would be metagaming since your character would not know that at the start of the campaign, but the players should), Will is going to be the most effective save by a mile.
That does not mean a player should go all Will for their saves, but a player who needs to succeed a lot to have fun might want to lean in that direction.
This is a question that can often be seen on Reddit threads or asked by new players. Commonly, they'll be told to use Recall Knowledge, and that's an excellent answer.
However, there is a better answer.
It's Will. Target the Will save and you will be correct the vast majority of the time.
I was curious about something, and have gone through all the Remastered potential adversaries thought Titanbane that are currently in PF2. I did not include NPC Core, as most of the things in that are not meant for combat, and I felt would devalue my primary research project. The books I did use are in the spoiler below.
Spoiler:
For rulebooks I used: Battlecry!, Howl of the Wild, Monster Core, Rage of Elements, and War of Immortals. For Lost Omens, I used Divine Mysteries, Highhelm, Rival Academies, Shining Kingdoms, and Tian Xia World Guide. Guns and Gears (Remaster), Tian Xia Players Guide, and Treasure Vault (Remaster) were also in the scope of the project, but have no monsters.
In addition, I used the following stand-alone adventures: Claws of the Tyrant, Night of the Frogs, and Prey for Death. Lastly, 6 APs were covered: Curtain Call, Mythspeaker, Shades of Blood, Spore War, Triumph of the Tusk, and Wardens of Wildwood.
I used Howl's publication date as a starting point, as it is the first ORC book.
What did I find?
There are currently 897 monsters in PF2E.
Of those:
437 (or 48.7 percent) have a high Fortitude save;
344 (or 38.3 percent) have a high Reflex save; and
162 (or 18 percent) have a high Will save.
Astute readers may note that those numbers add up to more than 897. That's because there are a decent number of monsters that have a tie for their high save.
As you can see, if you target Will blindly, you have an 82 percent chance of it not being the high save! That alone would be great information, but most of the ones that do have a high Will save are also monsters that focus on spellcasting. So, if the monster does not cast spells, you have close to a 100 percent chance that its Will save is not the high save.
I am not saying that I want them. I agree that it seems very strange for them to have them, and if I were to play a necromancer, I would not want to be Sanctified.
What I am saying is that I have no issues with the *option* to be there for people who have a concept they could work with.
Having an option for it, for every class, doesn't hurt anyone and gives more story options for those games or concepts that need it.
By this same logic, we should give animal companion and familiar feats to every class, simply because both would give more story options and would be presumably harmless. Incidentally, I also do think giving everyone sanctification takes away from the Cleric and Champion's main shticks, so I'd rather keep it down to a select few divine classes, which for better or worse the Necromancer is not.
We do!
Any character can take Beast Master to get an animal companion.
Any character can take Familiar Master to get a familiar.
Those options exist. I do see your point about limiting Santification, and I agree with it, but I can also see a valid reason to give more people options to get it.
Another thing to remember with ideas like this one is that the GM can do the same thing to the PCs! If your GM does allow this - and I do not think I would, but your GM might - you can't complain if it happens to you.
First, I want to talk about adventures being linear. Of course, a public adventure is linear. It doesn't matter what game it is; by its very nature, a published adventure is linear. That's mandated by the format of being a published adventure.
Guess what, so are homebrew adventures. If I sit down and write a custom adventure for my home game, or for the game I'm starting to run on these boards, it will still be linear. There will be a start, middle, and end.
What is not linear is how players approach the challenges in the adventure. My group may do things very differently from yours, or may become attached to different NPCs than yours. That's a very important aspect of making the AP, or any other adventure, unique for your group.
As an example, when I was in high school many years ago, we played the old D&D GDQ system each summer after 9th, 10th, and 11th grades. Even though every one in the group knew *all* the story beats, each summer was a different experience because of the characters we played, the ways we approached things, and the fall of that dice, and that was in a system with a lot less character customization than modern games.
What your group does with the framework of the story, and how you adapt it for them, is what makes that linear feeling go away.
As for FA, it is, by no means, about player choice. It is just the opposite. What do I mean by that?
I love the archetyping system in PF2. It enables all sorts of character concepts, and it does this by making a choice matter: Do I take a Class feat *or* an Archetype feat.
FA removes that. You get a Class feat *and* an Archetype feat. That is not a choice at all. That is getting everything, and given that most people seem to focus on the least narrative interesting options (IMO), the multi-class dedications, what FA actually tends to do is just ramp up character power, often through giving characters more versatility.
I'd think that if you're learning the system, you should ignore FA, and I know a lot of people won't agree :)
I'd also say that if you're looking for extremely specific knowledge of a particular topic, that's what the Lore skill is for in 2e. Pick a Lore subcategory or make one up, and you'll be covered. SF2e's Player Core even explicitly lists Physical Science as a subcategory of Lore you can take.
Ugh, if anything that only further entrenches my feelings. Dropping Physical Science from a primary skill to a lore subcategory is disheartening.
In 1E, Physical Science was a very broad category, similar to crafting. It was not a specific or niche subject matter, as people keep suggesting.
The thing is, Lore is not niche subject matter. It is both academic and practical knowledge of a subject.
For instance, Lore (Sailing) would allow someone to:
a. Identify a sailing ship by type and possibly by name because of features unique to that ship;
b. Design a ship like a naval architect or ship builder could; and
c. Sail any sailing ship.
All of that for one skill.
A Lore can be very narrow, ie, The Triaxian Pastry example above, or incredibly broad, such as Lore (insert name of Ancestry)
Imagine a person in the real world having Lore (Human). That person would be an expert on every culture on the planet, no matter how small or isolated that culture was, and could easily be an expert on every human culture ever.
Lore also has a ton of feat support, as every feat, or class feature, that ties into Recall Knowledge supports every single Lore in the game.
Every Lore you can imagine isa Primary skill, and now we have an infinite number of them, with minimal page space usage, to cover any possible thing any player anywhere in the world could want their character to know about.
As Dr. Frank said, this is ask your GM Territory. Also, you might want to actually say Transcendence and not the abbreviation that you chose to ensure that people can easily tell what you are talking about.
Here is how I would rule on your questions:
1. First, the ability answers the square question: "directly towards you into a square adjacent to you.". IE: a straight line to you.
2. The ability does not say "This movement is forced movement.", so I would rule that the forced movement rules do not apply.
3. Yes, I would let someone be yanked up, though the closest square would be under the exemplar, so that the ensuing fall would only be 15 feet.
4. The fall would be, IMO, forced movement, so would not trigger Reactive Strike.
However, your GM may not agree with any of the ways I would rule it, so you'd need to chat with that person to get the answer(s) for your table.
This is something that you should ask your GM about.
Does your table allow pre-buffing? If so, then as Dr. Frank said, sure, you can do that. However, notice that by Refocusing after, you are burning 10 minutes of that hour duration.
For other things to think about that are not in the can I area:
How long are your Treat Wounds breaks between combat? If you do 2 or 3 at once, you get 1, maybe 2 encounters out of it. If you do one max, that's 3 to 4 fights, so that would be an indication of how useful it might be.
How often do Adversaries use Dispel Magic? If frequent, it might be trickier to keep up for an hour. If rarely, then you're basically ensured max duration, which makes it safer to use.
I was also thinking it would be 2E, as that seems to be an easier conversion from 5E than it would be taking 5E to PF1, and because there are already a number of 'this works in both PF2 and D&D 5 products that might be good resouces for guidelines.
I think some part of the fun of playing an Exemplar is choosing your epithets based on what actually happens in the story, so I wouldn't want to plan the character too far in advance.
But the Exemplar I really want to play is sort of an "Anti-Barbarian" an Orc with a giant axe who is impossibly calm and heals himself constantly between Barrow's Edge and Scar of the Survivor. Take the Ferocity Feats so it's disturbingly difficult to bring you down in a way that sticks.
I feel the same way for character building in general, let the story guide it, especially for Exemplar.
I would like to play a spear using Exemplar at some point, based on the Greek Amazons, which is not as creative as some of the excellent ideas in this thread, but which I think would still be a lot of fun.
Something else to remember is that unless you use Subtle Spell, spellcasting is obvious.
Per, Player Core page 299:
"Spellcasting creates obvious sensory manifestations, such as bright lights, crackling sounds, and sharp smells from the gathering magic."
What does that mean at your table? I don't know. At my table, if you go to prebuff, initiative is rolled right then. The adversaries do not automatically know that the PCs are outside the door, but they do get Perception checks to notice things like loud chanting or crazy light leaking under the door.
Your table may very well be different from mine, so check with your GM.
As to Stellar Rush, I see no limitation on the Graviton pull that restrict it from pulling somebody vertically up into the air. Admittedly, I can imagine some GMs not allowing it but it seems to be RAW as far as I can tell.
The target is pulled directly towards you with Stellar Rush, so pulling them to a space above you is unlikely to be that unless they were already vertically above you. This isn’t a free unlimited Reposition, and I wouldn’t bank on that expectation.
While that would be generally true, Pauljathome had mentioned that he would be using Flying on a Dragonborn, so IMO at least, he could, indeed, pull creatures up and then drop them.
The ability to activate wands/scrolls/staves that have spells whose traits match your gate is strong on a single-gate kineticist and incredible on multi-gate ones.
It gives access to so many options both in and out of combat. As Yuri said, kineticists shine more with utility than damage, but there are spells that do both things for all six elemental traits.
First of all, I have an archer warpriest in a Shattered Star modified into PF2E in my current IRL game, so I've seen this from the GM side, and the concept can be fun. That player is a warpriest of Erastil.
However, I had noticed some things here.
1. Deadly Simplicity only ramps up the damage dice of Simple weapons, not martial ones. It does not increase the damage dice of the longbow, and in addition, cloistered clerics do not get it for free; warpriests do, so that would cost a feat to get.
2. You can't use Archer's Aim in the same turn as the Spellstrike Arrow. Archer's Aim is a 2-action activity. Spellstrike Ammo has to be activated to be used by Casting the Spell (1 or 2 actions) into the arrow, then using Strike before the end of the turn, just like all activated ammunition.
So, you can't Archer's Aim (2 actions), activate Spellshot Ammuntion (2 actions), Strike (1 action).
3. How do you even have Snap Shot? It's a Ranger feat that is also accessible to Alekenstar Agent and Bullet Dancer. Archer does not get access to it.
I think a lot of what you have set up is very nice, and it seems like it would be effective in Spore War. As I've seen at my table, a ranged cleric can be a very effective character.
The Dragon example above is not a good one, because Frenzy can target more than one PC, so even if one did the leap thing, the dragon could still wail on two other targets, and they're likely only using Frenzy if that exists.
I'm actually a little surprised at the rancor being given to this idea, given how absolutely horrible it would actually be in play.
What is your best-case scenario? It would be an adversary closing to you, then you Leaping away and avoiding a 2 action powerful attack.
To do that, you wasted 3 actions (after all, you need to Stride back to it on your turn) and a Reaction. Effectively, you crit failed against a Slow and added a 'lose my reaction' rider to it.
What is the worst-case scenario? It would be something like this: Adversary gap closes with one action, declares Strike as Action 2. You Leap. It has Reactive Strike, which triggers on your Leap. It crits. You are now prone, and it's Action 2 MAP-less strike ctirs as well. Then it hits you with an effective MAP -3 Strike for action 3.
In most cases, it would be somewhere in the middle.
Now, if you want to ban this at your table, feel free. But, this is just such a bad idea I would not care if someone at mine tried it. It's just really all downside to the PCs. I'd be annoyed as a player if someone did this frequently in a game I was in. All it does is make the fight harder for everyone else.
I think that you have a very interesting basis for a fun character.
However, I don't think we can help very much because a /lot/ of what you are asking for/planning on is GM dependent.
We can start with Syncreism. I am actually playing a cloistered cleric right now in a game on the boards who took that at level 2. The mechanical reason for it was the fire domain, but it also made a ton of sense with my RP. (My first deity is Tlehar, and I took Syncretism with her brother Chohar). It made mechanical, thematic, and RP sense, so the GM allowed it.
Will your GM allow it if the only reason you do it is to get a new weapon? I don't think any of us can answer that question.
Now, Splitner Faith is very problematic, from both an RP and mechanical viewpoint. From an RP perspective, you are worshiping your deity from a viewpoint that most see as heretical, and then you plan on spreading it out even further. This could lead to significant RP issues.
On top of that, there are two mechanical aspects that are worth noting: the first is that *any* domain spell you cast that is not on your specifically selected domains list is Heightened to one level lower thn your max, and second, if you do not take this Feat at level 1, you can *only* take it via Retraining, meaning you have to give up one of your earlier feats to get it.
While I can't say what your GM would do, I would likely say no to Splinter Faith in this case. One of Suncretism/Spinter Faith if RP supported it, yes, absolutely. They're both very fun and nice things to explore. Both, probably not.
Finally, will your GM ignore your Taunts? None of us can answer that. That is something I would urge you to discuss with your GM before making the character. Some GMs do not like anything like tanks or taunts, which I've never understood. If yours is that sort of GM, then this concept - which, again, feels very interesting - will fall flat.
Just a fast note here, remember that your DaS only applies to the adversary you use it on.
So, you can Das, roll a 1, then Strike, or Spellstrike *someone else*, and that 1 does not apply, and you roll as normal. You could, of course, roll low again, but that's always a risk.
As for the OP's question, I'd say that would be more campaign-dependent, but in most cases, I'd lean Magic with Investigator Archetype so that you could Spellstrike more often.
I think that Tridus' answer is 100 percent correct from a mechanical perspective.
However, what seems to be missed a lot when talking about the Mythic Rules is that, much like Daggerheart, there is an increased focus on the narrative side of the game.
In the story of your adventurers using the feat and embracing their mythic powers would be, IMO, much better than using Reroll Fate. If you use Acrobats Calling, for instance, to roll through a partly collapsing building and save someone's life, I'm much more likely to refund the Mythic Point as a GM than if you roll normally and say something like.
"Oh, I rolled a 2. I guess I'll just Reroll Fate."
I would want to reward you for using your actual Mythic feats and embracing the story, rather than just effectively popping a Hero point.
I do think that the mythic rules should have both had a playtest and something like a Developer's Diary video, linked through a Paizo Blog to explain the design intent, to be more in-depth about how the developers viewed the system.
As far as I know, there's no way to cast a Battle Aura for one action.
As far as the multi-sustain feats go, they are neat, but I would stay away from them, and here's why.
Most adventuring days will not have more than 4 fights. You probably want to use one font slot per fight. If you use more than one aura per fight, your font will likely run out, and that's bad.
Why is it bad?
Because you are still a cleric. You want spell slots with cleric spells in them, and unlike a War Priest or Cloistered Cleric, you'll also need to pack some Heal slots, and you might also want Harm for melee use. You won't have the slots in many cases to also dedicate some to extra auras.
Now, depending on the group and build, maybe some of the above might not be true, and you can load up low-level slots with auras and have plenty, but even then, in most fights, you won't need more than one. If you do, you just have to accept the setup time.
I hope your group likes Prey for Death. I've run it, and my group really liked it.
This is going to come down to what the DM thinks. I tend to not like to make something that doesn't require a feat more powerful than a feat.
And what feat would that be? What feat is weaker than spending two actions to prepare a reaction that the enemy might not even trigger?
I'm probably not going to allow this strategy either way though. Viable or not, this seems very obnoxious.
Is it obnoxious? In the end, if a player does this, they are spending *two* actions *and* a reaction to do....nothing.
They are not doing damage.
They are not hindering the enemy in any real way.
They are not protecting allies.
They are not taking an action to end the fight.
The only way that this can be obnoxious is if the GM always has the adversary Stride up, miss the Strike thanks to the reaction, and Stride again, and if the GM does that, well, then, yes, it would be.
In fact, if the creature has Reach, it could actually engage with this by Striding in such a way to get the PC in a corner and attack from Reach so that no matter where the PC managed to Leap to, they would still be in Reach and would get nothing from the lost actions.
If one of my PCs asked to do that, I'd say "Are you sure?", and if I was told "Yes.", I'd say "Ok." But, at most, it would work once, in a fight, before adversaries figured it out and started to use it to their advantage, just like PCs would adapt to tactics used against them.
I agree that SF2 firearms ranges are much too short. I suspect that this is because of map size limitations in published adventures. I do know that when I run SF2, I'll be considering increasing those numbers so that I can reasonably run encounters that feel far more modern/dystopian/sci-fi to make them feel different from PF2's close-combat encounters.
I also think that there will be a lot more actions spent on taking cover in SF2. I know that I plan to use cover a lot for my adversaries when I run it. That bonus to AC may well encourage a more fire and maneuver style of play, which, while not only being more realistic, would be another element to make SF2 and PF2 combat feel different.
This tactic would completely shut down a solo melee enemy: [...]
It would certainly be a valuable tactic, but Ready is mirrored, and foes are supposed to be intelligent enough to adapt.
After one Ready:Stride dodge, the foe can invalidate the action in a large number of ways. Everything from ranged attacks, to first Grapple, Trip, or anything that disables Stride, etc.
If the foes combine this with Ready themselves, a whole plethora of options open up.
Things like Ready: "as soon as they try to leave my reach, or my turn begins, I Grapple a creature" to give the scary boss a whole turn up close and personal with a freshly grabbed PC.
.
And yeah, the most "potent counterplay" of this is simply for foes to instead target the PCs that don't spend 2A to hunker down into a ready stance.
If anything, this actually swings pf2's issue / 'quirk' with action imbalance away from it's abusable norm and back toward a solo-boss's favor.
Every creature on the field needing to spend 2A to create a "Dodge safeguard" to avoid a solo boss's attacks means that the more PCs outnumber the solo boss, the more actions the player side of the fight would have to spend for this tactic.
Imagine if all the martials Ready:Stride a dodge, then the boss just rotates to face the lone 6HP caster who reeeally wants that 2A chunk, lol.
There is no counterplay for a cairn wight (pre-remaster, I know, it's just the first example I found) facing a group of 1st level adventurers who exploit the ready-stride tactic.
Yes, all the characters need to play by the same tactic (boring, but better than the risk of being killed and raised as a minion, I guess), and at least two of them need to have a 1-action ranged attack.
I have already described how savvy players would act. The monster has got no options against that, because it can't ever act in melee range of anyone, and the PCs won't get into its range voluntarily of course. All it
...
In addition to everything that TheFinish said, and it was all very well-written and totally correct, there is counterplay:
The Monster leaves! If it is a solo-type monster, it comes back when the party is fighting something else, or if it's not, it gets some friends. Monsters do not have to blindly fight to the death. Just like PCs, they can, and should, adapt to what the PCs do.
I also don't think most players would do this for more than a round or two. They'd get bored, and it doesn't help them end the fight.
The problem is the same as Stride. "I Ready for a specific stage of resolving an action, where the enemy has spent their action but not had an effect yet" has never been a valid Ready Trigger. Nothing different with Leap instead of Stride.
This is the relevant RAW. Triggers have to specify something a character can see and experience, not just a mechanical stage of resolving game actions.
Opponents are constantly moving and targeting, looking to find an opening to land an attack. You cannot trigger on things like ending movement or being targeted unless the feat or ability granting the reaction specifies it. Trying to argue around that is rules lawyering and meta-cheese.
Can you do some strategic things similar to this with Ready? Sure, if it's something legitimately observable by the character:
- "I run (stride) as soon as a foe gets within 10' of me." - Yes
- "I run/leap as soon as a foe gets within 5' of me." - Yes
(In both of these cases, the foe can continue their movement if they have some left.)
- "I run/leap as soon as a foe ends their movement in reach of me." - No, that's a player-observable game mechanic not a character-observable narrative moment.
I do not fully agree here, and that is because there are reactions in the game that do let a reaction happen when movement ends. Examples are
Goblin Scuttle, which lets a Goblin Step when an ally ends a move action next to them.
Another example is the reaction that Medusa get, which lets them make a Strike with their snake hair if an enemy ends their turn next to them.
The first of the examples above triggers off of another creature (in that case, an ally), ending a move action adjacent to the goblin, and the second shows that ending a turn adjacent can trigger a reaction. There is nothing in the rules that even hints in any way that a Ready trigger of 'If any enemy ends a move action next to me, I do <whatever>." is not allowed. I mean, that is exactly (again with ally instead of enemy), what Goblin Scuttle allows!
At rank 6, Thunderstrike significantly out performs disintegrate as a blast spell without a lot of manipulation of factors like off-guard, status bonuses to attack, and debuffing. Disintegrate is not the default single target arcane blasting spell. I have never seen anyone present it as the standard to measure arcane blasting with.
Does it?
I can agree with outperform, but significantly? Average damage is 54 for Thunderstrike and 55 for Disintegrate .
On the plus side for Thunderstrike is that it is a save spell, so only one roll. However, its damage is split between two types, meaning that there are two ways damage can be reduced, and Electricity Resist is not all that uncommon with higher-level enemies.
Disintegrate needs to hit, and then there's a Fort save. Those are downsides, absolutely. No one would debate that. However, its damage is untyped. That means basically nothing resists it, and anything that does is [i also[/i resisting both parts of Thunderstrike!
However, on top of that, the 'manipulating of factors' for the to hit is *already happening to help the melee!*. If anything, it's giving those normal things like trip more impact, since now it also helps the caster, and it's going to get easier with Guardian setting things off-guard via taunt.
I will agree a lot of the time that Thunderstrike is a better choice. However, I do not think the difference is significant, and depending on the group and enemy matchup, Disintegrate is the better option.
And that is good. Different situations having different answers is what makes a game interesting. It's boring to do the same thing the same way every time.
Also, Slither is not enemy only, so you may not get Reactive Strikes from allies when people stand up, since they likely do not want to be in the AoE themselves.
That said, Slither is a very good spell, and having an option to give it a variable effect would just make it better. Options do tend to be good to have.
I do not think any of what I am about to say will actually happen, but my wish list would be this:
Open up page space by cutting the DA Adventures. I have run a few of them, and they are really good, but this would allow player-facing things like Deviant Powers to have more space, it would allow cryptid stat blocks, which would be more useful, and it would allow a rework of Psychic.
For Psychic itself, I'd like to see it go to a 1 subclass class, and I'd like to see IW be made a class feature around level 10, so that it cannot be poached. I could be wrong, but I think people bounce off the complexity of Psychic, and I don't think its power level justifies that complexity.
Yuri's idea of a new casting system for it would also be possible with the extra pages opened up in this idea, but again, I do not think that will happen. It's just wishful thinking.
I disagree. There will be many times when you won't want to taunt. I'm fooling around with a Guardian in Dawnsbury Days right now - and it doesn't even have all the options one would have in a PF2E game, and there are times when I do not Taunt.
Maybe the enemy is too far away. Maybe I'd rather make another Strike because there is one foe left, maybe I'm low on HP, and the enemy goes before the cleric, and I want it to go after the DPS that round.
Yes, Taunt is good. Yes, most rounds the Guardian wants to Taunt. But, like with every other ability in the game, you need to make decisions round-by-round and not get into a rotation.
Also, and this may be just me, and I am not trying to be critical, but I do not, as a GM, look for mechanical reasons to attack or not attack certain characters. I try to make the attacks make sense in the story of that fight, and not have the monsters say 'Oh, that wizard has less AC than the fighter, so let me attack the wizard.'.
I find it interesting that some GMs seem to metagame with monster attacks and be mad when players do it.
I would prefer it if Taunt was a class feat and not a class feature.
I was just considering MCD Guardian on a prospective build when I realized I don't want them taunting anybody, mechanically or thematically. Even when my allies were struggling and I could take the hits I'd typically have better actions. Compare to one-action/one-round Compositions for amount of targets or effect and Taunt isn't efficient enough. That's a bit unfair out of context since the Guardian feats which depend on Taunt are strong and they balance w/ the Guardian being a hit point sponge.
It seems my words could be used to argue either direction on this. Hmm. But since a Guardian must invest in feats to make Taunt effective enough to warrant the action (especially if they have to Raise Shield too), and is thus easily ignored in a build, maybe it should be a feat (perhaps starting off at long-distance as per the 1st level feat upgrade).
I very much disagree that baseline Taunt is not effective on its own. There is no save, there is no roll. It just works. It does one of two things:
It determines an enemy movement before they go, and that can be very useful for planning. Or, it debuffs the enemy with both a malus to hit and Off-Guard for every single PC.
Put it this way - if you were playing in a game, and an enemy used Guardian Taunt on you, and you were next, would you think it was weak? You would either have to attack that specific enemy - and maybe you don't want to - or you would be Off Guard to the entire monster team.
Is it broken? No. However, it is very well designed, IMO, soft taunt, and I think a hard taunt would not have been liked by many players, given how, in the play test, a number of regulars were saying they hated the very idea of a taunt.
