Lightning Raven's page

The Mist Spell (and several similar spells) do not have any effect if you and the target are on opposite sides of the area.

"All creatures within the mist become concealed, and all creatures outside the mist become concealed to creatures within it."

That seems counter-intuitive. A area of mist should affect attacks going through as well.

Isn't that implied? Because it's pretty obvious from the get go. The text in the spell just states what happens when you're inside it attacking targets within and without the area.

This is a situation where you must remember you're a human person not a computer reading code.

I know it's an unpopular opinion and that probably very few people will agree with me:

The fact is that PF2e spellcasters only have problems because they are playing with old hardware. By that I mean they are using vancian casting on a new system.

We can pretty much trace back most of caster issues to the same source. The Vancian System.

Number of spellslots being a problem? Vancian. Spells not feeling impactful because they have to compete with others in the same tier? Vancian. Bad early game because late game they get to be strong? You guessed it, Vancian.

I still like a ton of Spellcasters in this game and is not like the Vancian system is bad. I particularly know how to use it quite well. But I can acknowledge that it brings more problems to Casters than it solves. And I mean on a foundational design level.

Anyone can guess which casters are highly regarded while others are not? Animists. Bards. Druids. Sorcerers. Kineticists (yeah, I'm calling a spade a spade). All of them to some extent to another.

What do they all have in common? They have a ton of flavorful and interesting CLASS options baked into them. From feats to subclasses. Which are completely tangential to the Vancian Spellcasting System.

We will remain trapped in this cycle as long as the root of the issue isn't dealt with. To me, the Vancian system SHOULD remain in the future of PF2e. But as a class-specific thing. Why not the Wizard? Make them THE vancian caster and redesign the whole thing around that, Wizards as the root and the old schools of magic become subclasses (with different names and concepts to avoid meddling from WOTC).

Sorry for the wall of text, but I guess we get lost in the weeds dealing with the tall grass, but I would like to remind everyone to look at the roots, even if you don't agree with me at all.

Seeing yet again something like the new Psychic and Thaumaturge happening again, it just makes me feel a sense of déjà vu. Strong classes getting buffed, weaker classes getting nerfed or changed for the worse.

I'm honestly thinking that there is a MAJOR disconnect between how players evaluate classes, and power in general when it comes to PF2e, and how the designers perceive it.

On one side we have Rogues having "Evasion" on all three saves, Fighters getting improvements, Barbarians gaining Free Action Rage but still having a feat tax for Intimidation on one side, and in another side we have Wizards getting changed and nerfed in the process, classes that needed actual improvements were either only slightly improved (Swashbucklers, Investigators, spellcasters) or largely ignored (Monks, Inventors, Rangers and Druids).

Something isn't adding up, because it is starting to feel like these changes have been a sequence of missed opportunities, questionable buffs and very, very, debatable nerfs. It's getting frustrating because it doesn't feel consistent, nor particularly well thought out.

That's undeniable that you're playing in unfavorable conditions. There isn't much around that unless the GM changes the encounter style.

However, things that makes casters strong are their versatility. Another thing that makes them powerful, but underrated at the same time, is battlefield control through spells that do not engage with enemy statistics.

Creating difficult terrain, blocking vision, creating walls, altering terrain (by creating high ground or holes, etc) and summoning creatures are ways you can engage with combat without relying on anything but your cleverness. Buffs are also an easy bread and butter.

You can save your DC-based or Spell Attacks for opportune moments with Sure Strike, enemies with strong debuffs applied (Off-Guard + Status penalties for AC, Bon Mot or Demoralize for other spells).

The thing I've noticed that many of these hazards are placed with the old design paradigm in mind.

In PF1e and earlier editions of DND, traps and hazards in doors served as small challenges that penalized the party for carelessness with resource expenditure. Now, there's no need to spend resources to recover HP because Treat Wounds exists and there are no built-in time-gated mechanics that leverage these traps the vast majority of the time. There are no "if the PCs trigger the trap, X happens".

Most of the time, I did it myself. But, honestly, not every DM will think of that and the effort in adventure writing would be minimal if, for example, it's said that if the trap is triggered another encounter changes or joins the battle.

Also... These hazards have way too powerful numbered bonuses. I rather them be more complex to run, but have fairer bonuses than behaving like PL+4 creatures (which are notoriously the most problematic kinds of encounters in PF2e).

Lightning Raven wrote:

To me, their dynamic of "Tandem Actions" is in a very good spot, so I think this aspect of the class should largely remain the same.

IMO, what I think the class needs more is Eidolons with more interesting abilities. They are an integral part of the character, yet very few them have actual interesting abilities. Also, the feats need to add more of those and less Strike modifiers.

Oh, and I think the class should receive a Class Archetype that enables them to realize the concept that Meld Eidolon was supposed to do, but clearly doesn't. The archetype could enable two playstyles that the base class can't, which is Melding into the Eidolon and fighting alongside it in melee. I would sacrifice spells as a whole (assuming the class gains more feats granting spell abilities like Kineticists do and more interesting Eidolons) in favor of a better martial chassis.

Thematically and mechanically we definitely need more eidolons. There's so many obvious candidates that just aren't covered y the options we have (Glares at occult).

Yes, there has been a very unequal rate of new content for classes, some have been virtually ignored, while we have Rogues getting outright broken class features.

To me, their dynamic of "Tandem Actions" is in a very good spot, so I think this aspect of the class should largely remain the same.

IMO, what I think the class needs more is Eidolons with more interesting abilities. They are an integral part of the character, yet very few them have actual interesting abilities. Also, the feats need to add more of those and less Strike modifiers.

Oh, and I think the class should receive a Class Archetype that enables them to realize the concept that Meld Eidolon was supposed to do, but clearly doesn't. The archetype could enable two playstyles that the base class can't, which is Melding into the Eidolon and fighting alongside it in melee. I would sacrifice spells as a whole (assuming the class gains more feats granting spell abilities like Kineticists do and more interesting Eidolons) in favor of a better martial chassis.

Honestly, my preferred outcome would be maintaining the flavorful and complex Mysteries from before, but reworked, along with the new feats.

I like that older Mysteries had a lot of moving parts and a ton of flavor baked into them. However, most of them were, by far, a huge wastes of opportunity with passives that could've offered more interesting things.

The fact that each tier just increased debuff numbers or added extra penalties was a missed opportunity. In a perfect world, each Curse tier would bring the penalties, but also offer an ability that made sense with its theme.

Personally, I think Oracles should be entirely redesigned whenever we get PF3e. Along with Wizards, Alchemists (they're in a good spot, but far from fully realized potential), Psychics and Inventors.

Yes. Restriction breeds creativity.

However, the more disruptive the restriction the more optional it must be.

As long as you know what you're getting into, I think any player won't have a reason to complain about having them.

I think the design intent is to make sure you eventually move on to new items as the old ones fade. That way, you'll actually care about new treasure, instead of going "yeah but all my investment slots are already taken".

Telling people to like it doesn't mean they end up liking it though.

I would really like a solid formula for "how much gold do I need to pay to upgrade this item's DC to the DC appropriate for my current level?"

I fully understand the design intent, but in practice, you do want those upgraded items anyways, because they do get much better. The issue is the in-between levels and when the item "line" stops at earlier levels.

In my opinion, DC of higher level items is important, BUT, the effects of higher level items already justify themselves without the DC increase. Lots of items go from 1/day to 1/hour or offer improved versions of their effects, which makes them still competitive, even if the increased DC is not relevant.

In short:

Rogues got many buffs it didn't need, got a broken ability that contradicts the entire class system design. Barbarians got some major improvements when the class was already great at was designed to do.
Wizards got shafted directly and Monks were shafted indirectly (they remained static while everyone else improved).

I think Paizo did a great job improving the class. Lots of good changes and addressing one of the most problematic issues present in the playtest: lack of proactive actions.

Unfortunately, even with the positive changes, this class still isn't for me, even though I like playing tanks. It severely needed subclasses, IMO, to improve variety. As it currently is, the Guardian is comfortably sitting below Alchemists in the character-making tier I have for PF2e. It's probably going to be a one and done just to complete having at least one character for every class.

Good thing is that those already on board with The Guardian can be happy, since the changes were genuinely good, given the context.

Absolutely. The uncertainty about the Blessed Armament was mainly because the language shift was apparently intentional and removed the text language from the previous feature that also appeared in the Battle Harbinger's feat. It seemed much more intentional than the Rogue's 3 "Evasion" Saving Throws.

Most combats are like 2-4 rounds and you can repair your shield to full after combat so 2-3 uses doesn't even really seem that bad tbh.

And in practice, you won't even use Shield Block every round.

With my champion, I only broke my shield when I was fighting a boss that ended up landing many critical hits during the fight.

Hey all,

A player of mine wants to take the Cloud step feat and describes wanting to go straight up into the air.

The feats reads as "walk for brief stretches across insubstantial surfaces." and "move across water, air, and solid surfaces that can hold only limited weight as if they were normal ground." both of which seem to imply horizontal movement or perhaps at some angle.

I have read arguments that other classes/feats get fly speed at a similar level to Cloud step, therefore Cloud Step should allow movement in all directions as well but that's really not how the feat is written.

Does Cloud Step really allow complete vertical movement without difficult terrain as Fly does("Moving upward (straight up or diagonally) uses the rules for moving through difficult terrain.)?

I don't think you should rule it as "Fly". You should rule it as "Air Walk" (https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=6). Which is pretty much the Spell version of Cloud step.

So, no, allowing the Rogue to walk straight up isn't a good way to handle this.

The previous one was strong and good, but also kinda pigeon-holed you towards Sturdy Shields or a select few specific shields with good base numbers.

They new version gives versatility and adaptability (finding new shields mid-adventuring and no time to visit a settlement). Not only that, but besides being "cheaper", it's also "faster". You can guarantee you have the best shield available every level while also prioritizing the mandatory runes.

Also, above all, it mitigates the loss of not using a Sturdy Shield, in favor of something more interesting and potentially fun.

Lightning Raven wrote:

Well, I guess if there was ever any doubt it was a mistake, this errata cements it as truth and intentional.

Rogues now are truly the only class in the game with "Evasion" effects on all of its Saving Throws AND it's the only class in the game to get Evasion when it becomes Expert.

Well, kinda.

But by the same logic that would mean that Minions are supposed to not have a defined length of time that they follow directions for when not in combat. And I refuse to believe that. It causes too much variation in how useful (or how much of a liability) Animal Companions and Familiars are during exploration mode.

The difference is that the minion thing is a grey area that only rule sticklers will create problems. Table variance will always, always be a thing. I do get where you're coming from, though.

The Rogue thing is outright egregious. So much so that everyone's first thought is "this must be wrong", because it breaks all the rules of character design PF2e so far, it goes against the overall design niche of the Rogue and it outright makes it even more of a favorite child than it was before the remaster.

To me, whether it's a mistake or intentional, Rogues simply shouldn't have this kind of buff. Some people might disagree, that's fine. However, this change will NEVER fly on my table.

Well, I guess if there was ever any doubt it was a mistake, this errata cements it as truth and intentional.
Rogues now are truly the only class in the game with "Evasion" effects on all of its Saving Throws AND it's the only class in the game to get Evasion when it becomes Expert.

I've played a champion from level 1 to 8 recently and never felt an issue with the class whatsoever. We got into some really nasty fights and in a few of those I had absolute certainty we would win, because I could mitigate so much damage and dish out quite a lot in return.

Unfortunately, I ended up losing my character after my group faced a PL+1 enemy with the elite template (making it have the raw stats of a 11th level dragon) and our group was rolling badly, while our GM was rolling high (25 critical successes during the session, among strikes, saving throws and skill checks). But, even then, my character was the only one killed and mainly because it landed a critical hit when I was wounded 2.

I admit mine feels very "wish list", but it's kinda hard to deny the anti-synergy between Flying Blade and Twirling Throw, specially considering why TT was introduced in the remaster in the first place (Thrown Build support).

Something that is grinding my gears and only further cements my opinion that Thrown Weapon builds aren't treated equally:

Despite being introduced as "Thrown Weapon Build" support, the new feat introduced in the Swashbuckler remaster, Twirling Throw does not synergize with the feat that is the backbone of the playstyle, Flying Blade.

Flying blade restricts the Precision Damage to its first range increment, while Twirling Throw is a Finisher with the main benefit being increasing the range of the weapon (by ignoring the penalties for its second and third increments).

This is, no doubt, by design. But I think introducing a Finisher Move that won't deal Finisher damage on the situations where you WANT to use it is not synergistic at all, specially since most thrown weapons (with agile and/or finesse) have range of only 20ft at best (and most of them are 10ft).

Flying Blade is already a feat tax, I really don't think Thrown Builds should have so many hoops to jump.

Gortle wrote:

Well you have time now to state the problem as you see it.

Well, it's simple: Is the Frightened condition applied by Dirge of Doom an ongoing effect or not?

Lots of players consider that the Frightened Condition is always an ongoing effect, without anything that state it in the rules and some spells that would be weird if it was the case (like Fear, which is rather basic for a spell that applies the Frightened condition). It's clearly a big change in behaviour as the end of the spell duration can either remove the Frightened condition on all affected enemy or not.

On the area thing, there's a definite ruling and no reason to play it otherwise (and as such you can't "tag" people with Dirge of Doom, no question on that). But on the ongoing effect issue, there's a rather general feeling and RAW that seems to disagree. But the sentence about ongoing effects is unclear as hell and doesn't help to make an undisputed ruling.

It's simple:

My DoD can straight up "tag" people. You cast it from the back line and the front line? Everyone the aura passes through gets frightened 1. Those how remain in the Bard's emanation at the end of their turns don't reduce it.
It's pretty nice. But the Bard is also taking a huge risk if they move to get more targets (and they're not casting another spell either).

It's strong? Yes. Does it make it too broken? I don't think so. Fear effects have many mitigation and immunity interactions, in some circumstances DoD is flat out useless.

To me, it's quite simple, my and Deriven's reading makes running Dirge of Doom and other Compositions really easy to run, to the point of me (and probably him as well) not even realizing that it was supposed to be contentious.

Everyone else's "static" emanation readings are causing a shit ton of problems with rules interactions and making complicated to run and rule it.

Guess what I'm choosing?

I don't care about the Aura trait or if the Emanation trait specifies that it moves with the target clearly or not (even though the implication is there). My Dirge of Doom moves with my Bards and Frightened 1 is always applied and only ticks down once enemies end their turns outside of the the emanation AOE (as it's usual for Frightened). Easy. Effortless. It just works.

Have fun with meaningless minutia, folks, peace!

There's nothing in the Emanation that says such a thing.

As far as we know, Compositions are Emanations that have a duration and "An emanation issues forth from each side of your space, extending out to a specified number of feet in all directions.", which means that for 1 round, the AOE emanation will move with the Bard. Which makes sense both mechanically (from the Emanation Rules) and narratively (the Bard singing/playing a tune).

The thing with areas of effect that stay in one place have a name. They're called Bursts.

You all are overcomplicating things and making the features worse for no reason whatsoever.

Since these composition spells do not have the aura trait, I consider them to work as a pulse that affects the entire area of ​​emanation that occurs at the moment the action of the spell is executed. This makes it easy to understand and execute.

So the Bard can move to a position, execute this pulse and affect all targets from that point on, then move again, but the targets have already been affected.

Personally, my reading makes it stronger, but, more importantly, makes it simpler to run. Which is why I wasn't even aware of the "troubles" with running Dirge of Doom.

I think it's important to not be lost in the weeds attempting to run down a set of rule functions like a computer and bugging out when it doesn't fit perfectly with the RAW. The good thing about TTRPGS is that RAW can be supported by RAI, unlike a computer game, and in this case Dirge of Doom is meant to be a frightening tune emanating from the Bard, not a "Fireball" effect, don't you all agree?

Not to mention how weird it would be to run Lingering Composition+Dirge of Doom. The Bard casts DoD+LC and then walks on his next two turns, and the sound/visual effect stays behind? Explain that to me, because it's me not wrapping my head around things this time! Haha.

Regardless, I will keep running DoD like I've been doing. No headaches, awesome results.

As it is now, it's very obviously (to me, anyways):

-When you use the action, it slaps down a static 30-foot emanation. This emanation lasts one round. It's not an Aura, so doesn't follow the Bard.

The funny thing about this reading is that this makes the Bard faster than the speed of sound, if you think about it. They're supposed to be playing/singing/dancing something so dreadful that is enough to send shivers down the enemy's spine.

Lightning Raven wrote:

Seems fairly straightforward to me. As long you're inside the aura, you maintain the condition and it doesn't drop normally. Once you get out, the condition works normally. Is that the issue?

First, it's not an Aura. So the area doesn't move. As there's no clause for entering the area, only enemies inside at the time of casting get Frightened. Then, you have the never ending debate on Frightened being an ongoing effect or not and as such ending when the spell ends or not.

I bet the following answers in this topic will show nothing's straightforward in Dirge of Doom.

It's an emanation around the Bard, that's why I mentioned "Aura". I'm just imagining the intended effect of a Bard sustaining their song for several rounds and the Composition effects emanating from them. That's the image we're supposed to get, even if round by round there's one action being spent.

Here's how I run Dirge:

There's a set 30ft AOE in the middle of the battlefield during a given round (from the moment the Bard cast until the end of their turn). Enemies who pass it, gain Frightened 1. If they end up the their round inside DoD, Frightened 1 doesn't tick down. If they ended without the AOE, the condition works normally, ticking down at the end of their turn.

I think since it's a "mild" effect, it's meant to be "sticky". Rather than an instant binary on/off situation (that creates the issues making it hard for you to wrap your head around).

Aside from a few generalities and basic assumptions, I don't think the game should focus on publishing elements that greatly guide players towards a specific playstyle.

Maybe presenting some direction towards successfully creating the campaign with the flavor a table might want, for example.
Such as:
1. Casual fun game night, featuring low encounters as bread and butter, moderate as mini-bosses and severe as major bosses, with higher focus on puzzles and social encounters as challenges.
2. Ragtag party (usually the type you see in DnD5e), with encounters mostly remaining on the moderate side, with battles designed to allow for mistakes and selfish play without a lot of consequences. Focusing on the usual dungeon crawls with heavy combat and avoiding higher-level enemies even in higher difficulties. Little to no focus on social encounters.
3. The intended experience, featuring the whole range of encounters, including higher level enemies that demand more teamwork and dish out more concentrated damage. Basically what you get on the average AP, but closer to Age of Ashes in terms of difficulty.
4. Hardcore, the old school meat-grinder with encounters mostly being severe and even Extreme+ in certain circumstances. High chance of encounters blending together and amplifying the difficulty. Time is always used as a constraint. And other tactics that requires the party to be on their A game in play AND build their characters with party optimization in mind.

I think the above, more than anything, is the best way to create a good first impression of PF2e and retain more players.

What mostly happens is people, even the ones who bother reading the books, coming to PF2e with other games' assumptions in mind and having a different experience than they expected. Specially DnD5e's newcomers, where encounters are mostly easy and just a slow, but certain, progress towards victory no matter what players do, what they built or how little teamwork they used. Then they come to PF2e, where a Moderate encounter is described exactly the same as a "Deadly" encounter in DND5e and they think the game must be played at that level, is too hard or too punishing.

Guiding new GMs into creating campaigns with the overall energy they're looking for is bound to be more effective than merely teaching players how to play, which something a couple minutes on google can give you an answer.

I wouldn't take Dirge of Doom because it's a rule nightmare. I'm not sure there's any table able to play it properly considering how it doesn't make any sense.

Seems fairly straightforward to me. As long you're inside the aura, you maintain the condition and it doesn't drop normally. Once you get out, the condition works normally. Is that the issue?

It made sense in legacy. But in the remaster it got a bit confusing because concentration is not exactly the same as verbal and theoretically not being able to hear yourself doesn't mean you can't speak.

Few tables know and accept deafened as a condition that makes it harder to cast spells, and it is also very likely to start a debate at the table, something that many GMs don't want to have to deal with.

Which is why I think it should call out specifically spells like it did, while enabling subtle spell (and similar effects) to work. It also improves Psychic spellcasting as a byproduct along with the player options that engage with Deafened both to inflict and prevent.

It also doesn't step on Stupefied toes because it can increase the flat check difficulty from baseline and affects other elements well.

I'd like a clear statement whether or not the Deafenend condition is supposed to have a chance to make you lose your spell when you cast it (assuming it's not a subtle one).

This came up multiple times on reddit in the past months with the main arguemnt being that spellcasting requires speech and all speech being auditory by RAW.

I honestly think it should, even if currently isn't. Don't know why they didn't make it crystal clear. The game seems to treat Deafened as a strong condition, since you can have it as a rider effect at 10th level competing with Slam Down, Grab and similar abilities.

Deafened used to affect spellcasting in PF1e as well and it was specifically called out as a 20% chance of failure (Flat Check DC5 in PF2e's terms).

_shredder_ wrote:

I still have hope that we will eventually get class archetypes for necromancers of other traditions. Occult will always be the least fitting and least interesting tradition for necromancy for me, but the class looks already great otherwise.

While I don't agree with you, I would like to point out that they said in the briefing that they'll be making it so Necromancers have access to the Necromancy themed spells that AREN'T on the Occult list, so that should satisfy most of your itch.

You do realize that this access will probably come in the form of a feat tax, right? At least, that's how these things have been mechanically-evaluated so far. They're not given as class features at level 1, as far as I know, which is what anyone would consider as having access to necromancy spells on a Necromancer class.

It also does sound like those rooting for Runesmith subclasses are in for disappointment.

Which is, as always, a huge mistake on every single class without strong chassis like Fighters and Monks.

I hope we're wrong and we end up having Runesmith subclasses.

Lightning Raven wrote:

You simply don't have Lore skills that you are not trained in. And if you are trained in them, then they're already better than Untrained Improvisation.

Either you are trained in them or they don't exist for your character. Which is one of the several elements that make them different from "normal" skills which Untrained Improvisation is designed to affect.

Player Core directly says you can make untrained RK checks with Lore skills, so this is incorrect.

There's also already an existing thread to discuss this topic where people are considering these very issues, there's no sense trying to re-litigate it in a thread that's not meant for discussion in the first place.

Well, Nethys isn't updated then, check it out:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=41&Redirected=1

The clause "Even if you're untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge." is only present on the Legacy version. Unless this bit of info changed to another rule, I don't think you can roll lore when you're untrained in it.

Source: Player Core

Feat: Untrained Improvisation

Could you please have a look and clarify how this feat interacts with Lore skills?

The current way the feat is written gives a character with this feat a variation on a Class Feat (Bardic Lore) in addition to boosting all the other Untrained skills a character may have. This feels inappropriately strong for any character to have for the price of a level 3 General Feat, let alone for high Intelligence characters.

You simply don't have Lore skills that you are not trained in. And if you are trained in them, then they're already better than Untrained Improvisation.

Either you are trained in them or they don't exist for your character. Which is one of the several elements that make them different from "normal" skills which Untrained Improvisation is designed to affect.

calnivo wrote:

I'd like a clarification / errata where necessary, regarding how certain Class Archetype Dedication feats interact with the clause "you can’t select a different dedication feat until you complete your dedication by taking two other feats from your current archetype" that was outsourced from specific (actually almost all) legacy dedication feats to the general paragraph in remaster, i.e. Player Core 1, p. 215, section "Dedication Details".

Is this really intended for Class Archetype Dedications (and all of them) as well?

Specific (not necessarily exhaustive) examples why I am asking:
- Secrets of Magic, p. 209, Flexible Spellcaster (Class Archetype) Dedication originally did not require you to "complete" the dedication originally. Now, above clause from PC1 technically demands it -- although it's entirely unclear how to do it. It might even be impossible to fulfil the clause unless one declares certain feats to be appropriate "Flexible Spellcaster Archetype" feats.

- I have similar reservations regarding War of Immortals's Class Archetypes, e.g. the Avenger (WoI, p. 58), the Bloodrager (WoI, p.60), the Vindicator (WoI, p. 64), etc.
While these do have a couple of explicit archetype feats one could take, I'm still in doubt: Is it really necessary to pick two of these -- which IMHO strongly narrows class development down to a certain nieche -- first before you can take a (non-class) archetype dedication (like Cleric Dedication)?

+1

Short version: Are class archetypes intended to “take up” the “dedication slot”?

Yes. When you choose a Class Archetype you also have to pick the dedication at 2nd level.

It just means Paizo is not a monolith.

Goddamn it, this phrase reminded me of Key and Peele's Black Republicans' sketch.

Lightning Raven wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Blessed Armament ... Then yeah, the conclusion has to be that it's deliberate until proven otherwise.

Except in this case we also have the question WHAT would be deliberate. I stand by the simplest possible reading that what's written works. It's easy, it's the base of the game rules. Is it written you get that rune for this character? Then you get it. Not even talking about that this counting potency runes also completely breaks when there are no potency runes. And if THAT is which is deliberate, no errata is needed and it's literally the situation of 'yes, the text in the book is correct'.

The deliberate part is the change from getting the effects of a rune on the weapon (that doesn't count against the maximum limit) to getting the rune itself (which counts towards the max).

First, again, getting runes from effects and not etching does NOT automatically make them counted towards the maximum. At a maximum it's debatable. And then, no, even changing wording doesn't mean much. It could've been a slip or an accident, or because they agree that you don't need to count runes from effects they don't think giving 'runes' makes a difference, but it's a simpler and more straightforward wording - any of those could be true. Or something else. In itself it doesn't prove anything.

Different wordings of different abilities either. We know they don't control rule wordings for perfect identity. And tend to repeat general rules. Sometimes, but not always.

As far as I know, feats and features in PF2e just say what they do. Not what they don't. This means if you're getting a rune (instead of its effects) you're engaging with the Rune system. If you find it weird the game isn't specifically pointing out weapons with potency, I do too, however, this is something the game just assumes you will have.

Regardless, the Battle Harbinger feat is, IMO, pretty damning evidence that Blessed Armaments count towards the maximum cap of runes.

Tridus wrote:

Blessed Armament ... Then yeah, the conclusion has to be that it's deliberate until proven otherwise.

Except in this case we also have the question WHAT would be deliberate. I stand by the simplest possible reading that what's written works. It's easy, it's the base of the game rules. Is it written you get that rune for this character? Then you get it. Not even talking about that this counting potency runes also completely breaks when there are no potency runes. And if THAT is which is deliberate, no errata is needed and it's literally the situation of 'yes, the text in the book is correct'.

The deliberate part is the change from getting the effects of a rune on the weapon (that doesn't count against the maximum limit) to getting the rune itself (which counts towards the max).

The change in text implies the latter. Specially when you consider the Battle Harbinger feat that has other language that is much more clear:

Your deity grants you extra power that you have learned to channel into your weapons. Select one weapon or handwraps of mighty blows when you make your daily preparations. While in your hands it gains the effect of one property rune. Choose either fearsome, ghost touch, returning, shifting, or vitalizing. This rune does not count toward your maximum rune count, and this choice lasts 24 hours or until you make your next daily preparations, whichever comes first.

If you can see, it's basically the Champion's class feature rewritten as a feat.

Tridus wrote:

Moth Mariner wrote:

- Rogue Resilience (Player Core) is the only save proficiency upgrade in the system that gives the "roll a success get a crit success" effect when upgrading to Expert, rather than Master. Is this right? Why do Rogues have this? They're already very powerful!

This has been confirmed by Paizo as intentional. I don't really understand why, but it's not an error.

Doesn't at least one other class (one of the newer unreleased ones I think) also follow this trend?

No. No other class have these on all saves. Not even The Guardian (the pure defense class), even for them the benefit is only given when they become Master.

Lightning Raven wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Inventor Multiclass Archetype requires +3 Int which is out of line of all the other MC Archetypes only needing a +2.

That's most likely by design.

They significantly improved the Armor Innovation, which is something accessible by the Dedication feat itself. They probably thought the +3 Int as a way to require character investment (or delay others) to have access to such powerful AC increase.

A multiclassed exemplar can have the same bonus, but for the whole team.

Not to mention it doesn't make sense to break the design logic of something for an edge case. More so when its not even an edge case.

You mean the Mirrored Aegis that is a STATUS bonus that also requires a Shield and an action to activate? Surely is the same as a straight up AC passive improvement that stacks with other things.

It's not weird to increase the dipping cost considering the strength the armor and weapon innovations are giving right now. In fact, it might even be an option to balance the Exemplar dedication. Things can remain powerful as they are, but demand more investment. Seems reasonable to me.

Mirrored Aegis's immanence effect is +1 status bonus to AC for you and all allies within 15 feet. The only thing that requires an action there is the trascendence, which doesn't increase the bonuses to AC but gives a bonus to saves too. In no way the inventor's armor innovation is better than this, more so to need to be the only class in the system that has a special attribute requirement when much better classes don't.

I'm not saying Mirrored Aegis isn't great. It's just that it has a bunch of caveats that the Armor Innovation just doesn't. The fact that Mirrored Aegis and other Ikons are so good is a bigger argument to make the Exemplar Archetype harder to qualify for, like the new Inventor, than others.

Personally, I don't mind strong Dedication Feats, but I think a good compromise is making them harder to qualify for.

Lightning Raven wrote:

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Inventor Multiclass Archetype requires +3 Int which is out of line of all the other MC Archetypes only needing a +2.

That's most likely by design.

They significantly improved the Armor Innovation, which is something accessible by the Dedication feat itself. They probably thought the +3 Int as a way to require character investment (or delay others) to have access to such powerful AC increase.

A multiclassed exemplar can have the same bonus, but for the whole team.

Not to mention it doesn't make sense to break the design logic of something for an edge case. More so when its not even an edge case.

You mean the Mirrored Aegis that is a STATUS bonus that also requires a Shield and an action to activate? Surely is the same as a straight up AC passive improvement that stacks with other things.

It's not weird to increase the dipping cost considering the strength the armor and weapon innovations are giving right now. In fact, it might even be an option to balance the Exemplar dedication. Things can remain powerful as they are, but demand more investment. Seems reasonable to me.

Inventor Multiclass Archetype requires +3 Int which is out of line of all the other MC Archetypes only needing a +2.

That's most likely by design.

They significantly improved the Armor Innovation, which is something accessible by the Dedication feat itself. They probably thought the +3 Int as a way to require character investment (or delay others) to have access to such powerful AC increase.

Looking forward to see the revised Guardian. Hopefully, the class turns my opinion around, because the playtest version did not make a good impression on me. At all.

You don't want this to be a "We're looking in on it" as an answer as that would promote a chance that any future problem would just end up with the same answer and not be solved but only to be left up to DM houseruling it or running it as RAW, which I hope, I HOPE that Blade Ally was just a misprint because personally that makes Champions the weakest damage class in the game simply because they don't get a free 1d6 bonus where Fighters cheese this by having a +2 Attack, Barbarian by boosting flat damage, Rangers by hitting a lot or one decent hit, so forth.

I was playing a Shield+Trident Champion recently and I was actually doing fairly decent damage, despite the Spellcasters in my Party not offering any buffs. The new Smite is very easy on the action economy. Since I had Retributive Strike, I also landed some extra attacks. It wasn't a power house, but my basic hits were 2d8+9 (or +10 if the enemy was Unholy), even above a Fighter (2dX+7 at 8th level). I know the DPR math will show the Fighter winning out because of the Accuracy, but in practice, I was doing more damage than I expected for such a defensive class.

Regardless, I still think it needs a clarification, because granting a Rune that takes slot is just a "feels bad" mechanic. You don't even have the versatility of the Magus' focus spell.

Personally, I rather have this answer be given here than having to send an email.

It creates an unnecessary burden on Paizo's community manager and it creates an unnecessary barrier between question and answer in this forum.

I rather have just a vague answer like "we're looking in on it" here, than having to send an email. Specially how a situation like that can become problematic with a bunch of dedicated nerds sending their questions.

Let me put on the record, you honor, that I would sacrifice the Strike from Create Thrall, if it meant that I could invoke 3+ of them from level one.
The Strike+Thrall is nice, but if the cost is for the Necromancer to become a "Totem" Class, I rather have the ideas associated with Totems represented (auras, connections between totems, varied effects, etc) than keep the totally-not-totems Thralls and forcing the Necromancy flavor.

Either necromancers control undead hordes (here's a good place for a Swarm-Thralls or Troop-Thralls), beefy but limited minions (here's a good place for the first class in the game that can sustain all their minions with one class), or they're masters of life and death themselves (no Thralls, but massive Spirit/Void/Vitality based abilities and Astral Projection at low levels). Also, the Scythe edgelords could sacrifice having thralls in favor of combat prowess and reaping their enemies' life-force.

Generalist classes always suffer from having options that take into account too much synergies at once that might have unintended power levels, they also need to be quite generic to fit all playstyles and will inevitable lack distinctive flavor.

Unlike the completely devoid of ideas entry that was The Guardian, The Runesmith has a TON of character archetypes and fantasies that can be explored through the framework of written Runes. From strong warriors using runes on weapons, armor or their own bodies, to nimble shinobi-type characters throwing projectiles with special effects or using scrolls.

A generalist Runesmith as it's implemented right now might work, but I feel like the problems that showed themselves during the playtest are far more related to core chassis structure than just merely adding more options (which is something we can comfortably take for granted).

Smooth action economy, effective actions and options that mechanically express flavor have always been the fulcrum of good classes. All the best received ones were playtested with solid basic chassis and reliable (Animist, Exemplar, Thaumaturge and Kineticist), while the most rejected or that underwent through overhauls were often unreliable and with playstyles that required jumping through too many hoops to achieve the baseline performance of other classes (Warpriests, Swashbuckler, Inventor, Investigator, Alchemists, etc).

A good avenue to solve these main problems is with subclasses. Nobody complains about Warpriests anymore because they have a better buy-in for what they want and tailor-made options that enhance their specific playstyle.

I'm always in favor of Subclasses because when done right, they offer all the buy in necessary to have a functional specific playstyle and a good foundation for mechanically interesting feats that can be stronger/bolder because they don't have to consider every potential option at once.

From what I could experience, the class offers the "Necromancer flavor" we're expecting only at very high levels, with feats that give a lot of thralls and the basic action summons several of them, but it falters in mechanical efficacy due to range limitations, varied movement types and prevalence of AOE effects.
While at earlier levels, you don't satisfy the intended class fantasy due to a lack of thralls and weaker options, but the most common battlefields enable the class to work decently (despite some kinks). Even then, the playstyle feels clunky when you're not in the best case scenario.