I can only second the suggestion to look at the Automatic Bonus Progression optional rule. It really makes the damage upgrades come from the characters themselves, and magic is left to do, well, magical things. Like enabling to fight incorporeal creatures, adding elemental damage, making the weapon able to shift form etc.
But when someone is telling me that charging a spellcaster the equivalent of an entire consumable so that they can have the opportunity to learn a new spell - even though the rules say that nowhere ... and then tells me that my reading is not RAW ... sarcasm is my natural response.
Ah, but the rules also do not say that you don't pay extra for access to the spell formula, so checkmate. /s
But yeah, it is called 'Scribe a Spell' and not 'Get a Spell' for a reason. The 2 spells casters get on level-up are free, everything else will have to be acquired somehow. And the closest equivalent we have is acquiring a construction formula to learn to craft a thing:
"You can buy common formulas at the Price listed on Table 6–13, or you can hire an NPC to let you copy their formula for the same Price. A purchased formula is typically a schematic on rolled-up parchment of light Bulk. You can copy a formula into your formula book in 1 hour, either from a schematic or directly from someone else’s formula book. If you have a formula, you can Craft a copy of it using the Crafting skill. Formulas for uncommon items and rare items are usually significantly more valuable—if you can find them at all!"
'Buying a formula' is akin to buying a scroll, and 'hire an NPC to let you copy their formula for the same price' is probably what Ravingdork's GM did. The only difference is that sribing spells into spell books costs extra. Oh and it can fail because nat.1s happen.
It is a lot easier to hit someone with the shaft or handle of a weapon in a grapple though.
Arguably, maintaining a sense of verisimilitude (like reality, unless noted otherwise) is a basic necessity for a fun and clear framework, Acceptable Breaks from Reality for the sake of balance notwithstanding. This is a trope of its own for a reason.
As far as that goes, one of the upsides of ranged weapons is that, well, you can fight at range. The price to pay for the privilege is that some enemies can mess you up if they are within melee range with you. Unless you have a feat that says otherwise that is. Seems fair to me at least.
If anything, your examples prove my point. Neither Skirmish Strike nor Quick Draw have any text involving AoOs, whereas MSS explicitly does.
You have no argument for why MSS should be limited to removing only the 'ranged attack' trigger from a ranged strike, when it explicitly states that the whole Strike does not trigger reactions, period, even going so far to add text making it also not triggering any non-AoO reactions.
Skirmish Strike and Quick Draw work with both melee and ranged attacks, but only ranged attacks provoke. In the case of Quick Draw, we have an Interact action combined with a Strike, and since Quick Draw has no language pertaining to preventing triggering AoOs, you are still liable for suffering an AoO for drawing a weapon.
MSS covers ranged attacks, no matter how you perform them. You can make a bow shot as part of a Skirmish Strike, and your shot would not provoke. The Step doesn't anyway. You can perform a bow shot as the Strike part of Quick Draw, and while you would provoke for drawing your bow, you would not provoke for shooting your bow.
And yes, Cut from the Air is a non-AoO reaction to a ranged Strike, which MSS explicitly calls out for not being triggered.
So yes, as written MSS very much does remove all triggers from ranged attacks, and you have no grounds to argue otherwise.
It does say nothing about Reloading, Interacting or the Manipulation trait, because it does not have to.
For a crossbow, the actual Strike is exempt. It is a mere ranged Strike a basic action, and MSS absolves that from provoking. Loading the quarrel is not immune, since that is not a Strike, but an Interact action. Which MSS does not cover.
But if we argue, that in the case of a 'Reload: 0' weapon, the Strike action includes the Reload action, then the Reload is covered by the blanket immunity MSS offers the Strike action, and no extra mention of the Reload action or any of its traits is required.
Your interpretation requires the Reload to be separate from the Strike. Or the Draw from the Throw in the case of the Quick Draw feat. Which means that MSS doesn't work for thrown weapons either. When your interpretation makes the feat not do what it says it does, I'm inclined to call that interpretation the wrong one.
To be clear, I fully understand why you all feel the way you do. I don't think your reasoning is horribly flawed. The language is unclear. I read it a different way. I don't need to keep repeating my arguments but people keep responding as if my logic is inconceivable, which begs me to keep trying to explain myself.
The rules try to simulate reality, except when describing things like magic, which there is no real-world thing to compare to.
If one reading of the rules matches, or at least closely approaches the reality the rule is meant to represent, and the other doesn't, then the one closer to reality is by default the correct one.
Now it is up to you to decide how realistic is is, or is not, to prevent someone from successfully shooting a bow by grabbing or attacking them.
I don't know if you do archery, but shooting a bow involves your whole body. I can see how easy it is to lose your stance, and thus your shot, if someone is interfering with you. If anything, losing a shot only on a critical hit or a roll of 1-4 on a D20 when grabbed is mighty generous.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Ideally, the feat should work that way, but by RAW it doesn't, because it specifies only AoO, and other reactions with a trigger of a ranged attack.
This is the part where I believe you read something into the text it does not actually say.
The feat states 'your ranged Strikes don't trigger AoOs'. That's it. The action does not trigger, period. No matter how many tags you could use to justify getting an AoO from that Strike, you just don't. That's what the feat says.
I do not see how you get to the interpretation that 'your ranged Strikes' is anything other then a clarification that Mobile Shot Stance indeed covers ranged attacks, not melee ones, and also thrown weapons and not just shots. I can not see how you justify that as somehow limiting the effect to merely negating the property of being a ranged attack, and not everything that could otherwise provoke, which the text plainly states it does.
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Welp, depending on just how much difference there is between your character's STR and DEX scores, the only things I can come up with right now are the Weapon Proficiency General feat and Fighter dedication. At least Fighter dedication allows to get Expert proficiency at lv. 12. You would almost always be 2 points behind in proficiency, but if that is less then the stat divide, it would at least be a mitigation.
I suppose it depends on to which level you want to take this PC.
Deriven Firelion wrote:
There is also the fact that, say, a ranged Rogue doesn't need to spend any actions making his target flat-footed when his Fighter buddy does it for him. And the damage from a Rogue's sneak attack makes up for the attack you sacrifice. Never mind the other party members also having an easier time hitting.
Combat Grab also flat-foots the enemy, and if you combine a Trip with a Combat Grab, you can really mess up an enemy's turn, or have another chance to flat-foot the enemy if the trip fails.
Basically, Fighters can chose between attacking AC or Saves to Trip/Grapple, which can make all the difference.
Fighters are, of course, well equipped to trip with the Knockdown and Improved Knockdown feats. While the latter is a lv. 10 feat, the Trip is automatic on a melee hit.
Knockdown itself offers a MAP-free trip attempt after an initial melee hit. Since Fighters gravitate towards having a good Athletics score, this is worth a consideration.
So, I misread the rules on Thief Rogues and didn't see that their add dex-to-damage ability only works on WEAPONS. When I found this out, I was greatly saddned because I built an unarmed attack thief rogue that is now neigh-on useless now that I read that rule (this is for PFS by the way, so no houserules can fix this.)
I don't know the specifics of your character, so what did you dedicate to Unarmed Strikes, so that the image of a brawler can not be salvaged by using, well, Brawling weapons like a knuckle duster?
Yeah I could have worded that better but please re-read what Baarogue said: "In my example of the second Stride subordinate action of a Sudden Charge activity being disrupted, the Stride was disrupted but the Sudden Charge was not disrupted."
So I pointed out that, even if it is one of the Strides pulling the AoO, it is still the whole Sudden Charge that gets cancelled.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
And MSS isn't meant to protect from manipulate traits, so saying it is "broken" from this interpretation is debunked by it not working for manipulate traits on strikes. If I take MSS, and throw bombs, I still trigger reactions/disruptions because of traits, not because of not spending an action on it, or because it is a ranged attack, which, by the way, breaks more things than it fixes. MSS isn't a "bows don't trigger feat," nor is it a "manipulates don't trigger" feat, it's a "ranged attacks don't trigger" feat. I.e. thrown weapons.
So you are saying, the feat does not do what it says it does?
MSS: "While you're in this stance, your ranged Strikes don't trigger Attacks of Opportunity..."
I mean, the wording is pretty clear: Your ranged strike doesn't trigger AoOs (also not other reactions). Not for being a ranged strike, and not for any other reason. Like, having a Manipulate/Interact baked into it for example. So yeah, it does protect from Manipulate traits after all.
Edit: As for shurikens, they were free to draw in PF1 (by virtue of being ammunition), so you could use all your attacks for throwing them, without needing Quick Draw.
In this sense, they are like the 'bows of the thrown weapons', or at least that seems to be the intent.
But that is not really my point. My point is: even when I hit with three crits (I don't roll that good usually) and all my other attacks, the night hag wasn't going down. My problem isn't that I feel bad because my character went down (that happened often enough before), my problem is my damage output feels pitiful (especially compared to the hag).
SuperBidi already mentioned it, but you have to keep in mind that the martial classes are very closely balanced for damage output in PF2. Since the Flurry Ranger can do a lot of attacks, every individual attack is correspondingly weaker. A critical hit with a d6 Agile weapon is about as good as a regular hit with a d12 weapon outside of static bonuses. On the other hand, you have more opportunities to make the static damage count, so there is that.
It is generally not possible to one-shot enemies outside the lowest of levels. In return, most enemies will likewise not be able to drop a PC in just one round of attacks.
However, as far as tactics are concerned:
Think of it as trading a pawn for a rook in chess: If you can inflict 20 damage with a hit, and the enemy 30, if you forgo an attack to deny the enemy theirs, you are basically preventing 10 damage to the party. Tripping, grappling and even shoving enemies can force them to either suck up penalties or spend actions countering them.
Sure, if that only costs them their 3rd action, it will not make their first two attacks a round any less deadly, but many monsters have special abilities that require 2 or 3 actions to perform. And if that 3-action attack can, say, inflict 60 damage to the whole party, then your sacrifice of 20 damage just means the party is 40 damage ahead.
Do you have any martial controllers in the party? Can the Monk do trips, grabs and shoves to force enemies to waste actions? Slow spells? Heck even things like Demoralise and Intimidating Strike at least lessen then chances for enemies to hit and crit. How is your party set up for that sort of thing?
It is very relevant, seeing that your example directly violates the quoted rule: Lose 1 action, lose the whole activity.
So the monk disrupts the whole Sudden Charge, stopping the Barbarian dead in their tracks and wasting all 2 actions spent. Because it is the Sudden Charge that gets disrupted, not a Stride action that happens to be part of it.
Tautology much? 'I say that subordinate actions being disrupted does not disrupt the whole action/activity, therefore disrupting a subordinate action does not disrupt the whole action/activity'.
The whole point of subordinate actions is that they combine multiple actions for a reduced overall action cost. They become, in fact, their own actions/activities. Therefore it does not follow that an ability that expressively disrupts an action/activity should not be cancelling the activity in its entirety.
If we accept that Strike + Reload for a bow become their own 1 action activity, and that disrupting any one of the subordinate actions cancels the whole strike, then the same goes for Sudden Charge.
Furthermore, your own example contradicts your #5 on the list again. Sudden Charge happens to include 2 Stride actions. If your argument was valid, then Sudden Charge would not provoke an AoO since non-ranged strikes don't, and the Strides, as subordinate actions, do not trigger, since: "The containing action does not inherit the traits of the subordinate action.", in this case, being Move actions.
So, if you argue that Suden Charge still triggers AoO for containing a Stride action, then you must concede that a ranged Strike with a Reload-0 weapon also triggers AoOs by virtue of containing a Reload action.
If, however, the bow-shot is supposed to have lost the Manipulate/Interact trait upon being bundled with the Strike action, thus no longer provoking outside of being a ranged attack, then not only does MSS negate all reactions towards the Strike, it would also mean that Sudden Charge is no longer eligible to be disrupted for using a Move action (still ought to trigger for leaving a threatened square though).
See the problem there?
Yeah, contradicting yourself right there.
Ed Reppert wrote:
Haven't we been over this? No interaction happening would mean no reload happening would mean no ranged Strike happening. Reload 0 means that the reload interaction costs 0 additional actions on top of the 1 action for the Strike itself. No more, no less.
I think you are thinking about this backwards. MSS doesn't stop Ranged Strikes from provoking entirely, it only stops them from provoking by virtue of them being ranged strikes. It doesn't stop any other trigger as far as I can tell.
The feat states that "...your ranged Strikes don't trigger Attacks of Opportunity, or other reactions that are triggered by a ranged attack.".
I would like to hear your reasoning for why this feat supposedly does not do what it says it does.
My point is that even if you remove one trigger, you don't remove all possible triggers of an action.
How so? If the argument is that the Reload action gets subsumed into the ranged Strike action, it means the Strike inherits all the traits of the subsumed action, hence the Strike action of a Reload-0 weapon has both Manipulate and Interact traits. So far so good.
Since Mobile Shot Stance explicitly says that your ranged Strikes do not trigger AoOs, it does not matter how many traits there are that could trigger a reaction. And the part after the 'or' relates to things other then AoOs, so is not relevant here.
To clarify: The feat expressively negates AoOs from the ranged Strike, period. It merely clarifies that it also negates non-AoO reactions, that would otherwise be triggered. I do not see how your argument holds water. Disrupt Prey and Implement's Interruption would be either a form of AoO, which MSS explicitly negates, or they would fall under 'other reactions', which MSS also cancels.
Tandem Strike isn't an action economy booster, it's two strikes for two actions.
Oh, I overlooked that that is a two-action activity. I went off Act Together and Tandem Movement, which are economy boosters. My bad.
That also seems to indicate that a melee Summoner should absolutely take Tandem Movement, if they plan on using Tandem Strike.
Am I missing something? Isn't the point of Tandem Actions to be an action economy booster? I mean, it is probably really not a great idea to try to melee as a caster type, but at least that one would allow some extra mobility or utility.
Like, move into a flanking position, strike twice with Tandem Strike and still have an action left to do something useful with? Raise Shield for example? Or step/move your fragile caster self out of harm's way again?
Or maybe if you actually ride your Eidolon, move into range, Tandem Strike, disengage again skirmisher style?
Jared Walter 356 wrote:
In this case, there also is no problem with Mobile Shot Stance. The reload is subsumed into the Strike action, and the feat explicitly absolves the Strike action from any AoOs. So the reload technically provoking does no longer matter.
Would also mean that, yes, a grappled archer without Mobile Shot Stance stands a 20% chance to lose their action.
So, uh, what was this thread about again...?
Yeah, that. So, unless we go with '0 action cost to reload means no interaction happens', that question is now answered as 'Yes, being grabbed does influence shooting a bow'.
Okay, how about we all look at the greater picture for a moment? What actually does it mean that a reload is an interact action? Mostly that it provokes AoOs and can be disrupted. Also that a grappled character has to make a DC 5 flat check or lose the action.
About that: The action cost for the reload action for a bow is 0 actions. So if the DC 5 flat check fails, the character has to redo the reload action, pay the cost of 0 actions again and roll the flat check again. They have to repeat that until they either succeed at the flat check, or run out of actions. Whichever happens first. Computing the chances for each of those two scenarios occurring is left as an exercise to the reader.
If reloading draws an AoO and can be disrupted, well, if it gets disrupted, the character again has to make another reload and pay another 0 actions for the privilege. And then can perform the ranged strike with the bow unscathed, seeing that most enemies only get 1 AoO per round.
A savvy enemy, presumably, would not waste their only AoO on the reload action however, but try to disrupt the strike action instead. Because the cost of retrying that one is 1 action and -5 MAP.
Now a certain Fighter feat makes the archer not take AoO on ranged strikes. Does the reload provoke? Technically yes, but again an enemy presumably wants to stop the character from actually shooting, so would try to disrupt the strike, an learn the hard way they can't. How often that works before the enemy just tries to get in the AoO is another matter.
The game has the granularity for an action to include 2 subordinate actions. It does this frequently, it just needs to state that is what is happening. In the case of reload, we specifically get language that counters this idea by telling us a weapon with 0 reload requires 0 interact actions.
See, this right there is where your hang-up is: Zero does not mean 'nothing'. Zero is a number. The fact that a weapon has a reload entry to begin with informs us of the fact that, yes, that weapon needs to be reloaded. And thus an Interact action does indeed happen.
The numerical value in the entry informs us about how many of our usually 3 actions per turn we need to spend to perform that reload interaction.
In the case of bows, that number happens to be zero. So we have to spend zero of our 3 actions-per-turn on reloading a bow, and 1 action to actually shoot it. Effectively, it is 2-for-1 deal: Do 2 things (reload and shoot) and pay 1 action. So we pay the price of zero actions to perform the reload, but we do indeed perform the reload, because zero is still a price to pay and not 'nothing'.
It is not exactly intuitive, but that is why the invention of the number zero is an important milestone in mathematics.
Remember my earlier example about not having a shield bonus when not wielding a shield? Distinctively different from having a shield bonus with a numerical value of zero. The bow is the other way around: It does have a reload number, it just happens to be zero. But that still means it does have to reload, and thus an interaction happens.
The whole 'Medicine can heal entire parties between fights' thing is just a result of 'Martials's daily limit are their HP pool' simply not being true once wands of CLW become affordable in previous editions.
Even outside of wand spam, sucking up the Cleric's spell slots for healing, still basically meant 'we are at full health until we run out of Cleric spell slots'. Now there is a skill for that, and Clerics are no longer just ambulatory first aid kits, a.k.a. healbots.
As far as the length of the adventuring day being limited by spell slots, well, Cantrips being decent now means that technically, casters too can be casters all day long. Just not with particularly impressive spells.
Or you could consider that combat rounds in D&D/PF are supposed to take about 6 seconds. If this is covered by 3 actions, then each of those covers about 2 seconds of activities.
It is absolutely possible for a skilled archer to shoot more then 3 arrows in the span of 6 seconds and still hit a target, so this is more a matter of the action system not having enough granularity to depict the loading and shooting of a bow as individual actions.
GURPS uses 1-second rounds for example, that would be like PF using 6 actions per round. It would just be a bit awkward to have to make most things use 2 or 4 actions, just so that (re)loading and shooting a bow could be represented by 1 action each, just to avoid the idea that a 0 action activity 'doesn't actually happen'.
Players shouldn't be expected to go through the mental gymnastics as reading 0 as different from none.
That reminds me of an argument that happened a few years ago about an obscure feat or ability, which would, in essence, increases your shield bonus by +1.
The way it was worded prompted a joker to argue that this would give him a +1 Shield bonus to AC, even without actually wielding a shield.
Counter argument: "Without a shield, you do not have a Shield bonus of +0, you don't have a Shield bonus, period." And a bonus you don't have to begin with can't be improved by a feat. So yeah.
As for balance, bows are already so far ahead of crossbows, now making it impossible to interrupt an archer with an AoO on top of everything else just makes melee guys sad. Why do you hate melee guys so much... :p
PS: Also someone used a 5th level ritual on the thread. But hey, valid target, not older then 1 year.
It's called player / character knowledge segregation. Just because you may be able to sing the Monster Manual backwards doesn't mean your toon does. Basically, the Knowlege/Lore check tells you what your character knows, and is supposed to inform your roleplaying.
It's the same thing with knowing the damage roll before you decide to use a shield block. It's supposed to not make shield blocking a 'Gotcha!' moment, but it can create some weirdness.
Oh and things like Reactive Shield are in the same boat really. Technically, your character also doesn't know by how much a monster beat your AC with its attack roll, but since these abilities are specifically being called out for triggering when they would actually make a difference...
Honestly, it is right there:
"When you Treat a Disease or a Poison, or someone else uses one of these actions on you,..."
The first half ought to be clear enough: Whenever your toon uses the Treat Disease/Poison action, the benefits of the feat apply, period.
In addition, the feat is so awesome that it even helps the character themselves, when they happen to be the patient rather then the doctor.
As for the first sentence, flavour text or not, implying anything, the same reading applies:
"You learned folk medicine to help recover from diseases and poison,"
You are the doctor helping your patients get well. That is the core use of the Medicine skill, period.
"and using it diligently has made you especially resilient. "
In addition, the feat is so awesome that it even allows the practitioner themselves to benefit from it.
And honestly, the name of the feat implies no such thing as only being relevant to the PC possessing it. The feat makes a recovery robust. Which recovery? Why, the recovery the use of the Medicine skill affords the creature it is being performed upon. Which is usually a person different from the one performing the skill.
It is hard to give any advice about how you should approach your GM about this, but it seems like your GM is balking at a non-magical feat being "too good". Perhaps they are used to editions where anything fancy is purely the purview of magic, and mundane skill use is simply, well, mundane.
If that is the case, maybe it helps pointing out that PF 2 tries hard to not make magic and casters overshadow non-casters, and that is why skill feats (which are available to everyone) are meant to actually be good. Just point at the Legendary uses of some skills and ask if these are okay to take and watch their reaction reading up on them.
Edit: Maybe it helps pointing out that they are hurting the party by not allowing the feat to apply to the party?
That's still a monster doing things to you. That's on them. An outside influence.
But telling yourself that the curse isn't so bad, or that is now your duty to put it to good use, that you are doing to yourself. That is on you.
Personally, the idea of being a true Lycanthrope in that world. Because of the Curse, no matter what else you do, you will go insane and try to kill and eat people (at least those who don't share the curse).
So you either try to fight the curse, but you will never be able to get rid of it as long as you live, no matter what you do, and if you screw up locking yourself up on the nights of a full moon, people will die. If you are lucky, a slayer gets to you first.
Then again, hey, wolves gonna hunt, no matter what. Could as well make the most of it. After all, when you can do something (violently permanent) about that corrupt guard/sheriff/judge/whatever and you don't, well that would make you the a*&!$*%$.
Why, you'd basically be doing people a favour! Get your kill, society gets rid of an a$$+$*%+, it's win-win! Just don't look too hard at what these people were actually doing, wouldn't want to muddy the waters with them having reasons and whatnot...
In other words, how easy and seductive it would be to lean into the curse and willingly become a total monster. At least even murder-hobo PCs usally have the good graces not to pretend to be particularly good guys.
In PF2, if those 2 points would have been covered by the target being flat-footed or otherwise de-buffed, they may be trying to teach teamwork.
As for dice, the d20 I have must pull double-duty both for D&D style games where higher is better, and another system where you try to roll at or below the target number to succeed. So far they have been rolling pretty balanced, so I can't complain.
But yes, sometimes just throwing a handful of dice at the enemy is soo satisfactory.
But this is clearly different - Wish allows you to create an effect that has a "power level in line with an arcane spell of 9th level or lower". The question here is "does Meteor Swarm, but dealing cold not fire damage, have a power level in line with 9th level arcane spells" - if you answer yes, you have to be saying that the cold damage is the source of the increase in power level; the flexibility is being paid for by the 10th level spell slot.
You are forgetting that the flexibility already lies in being able to cast any arcane spell other then another 10th level spell, and on top of that any spell up to 7th level of spell lists you don't even have access to otherwise.
Now bending and twisting those spells on top of getting access to them in the first place may be more flexibility then the 10th level slot pays for.
The original question is: 'If in all the spells accessible by Wish, a player does find many that are a solution for the problem at hand, but not the ideal/optimal solution, is allowing the player to further bend and twist a spell to 'optimise' it covered by the Wish spell's power or not.'
Ultimately, every GM has to answer that for themselves, but I will say again, if only casters get to play that game, you are back at creating a caster/martial imbalance that PF2 tries so hard to avoid.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I suppose that these aren't as open-ended or subject to interpretation as that which is discussed in the Wish spell, but most mundane options don't behave that way, by design. Most of the time, if they are, they are usually glaring anomalies that need more specifics behind them, not unlike pre-errata Battle Medicine.
But that's the thing, isn't it. Feats and class features have very strict definitions about what they do and what they do not allow a character to do.
So as it stands, casters with access to Wish can break reality in a way martials can't. That is, try to bend the rules, because they are not strictly defined for that spell. So the more Wish gets allowed to bend the rules, the further casters with Wish deviate from the norm all other characters have to adhere to. Which then should inform any GMs decision about just how much leeway they are willing to give a player in bending the rules.
That's not what I mean. If a character can take a feat to do a thing, then that is by definition within their 'usual means'. The question was about the Wish spell, and how much leeway a caster has/should have at trying to bend the rules there.
So what would be an example of a non-caster trying to get past their 'usual means' in a matter mirroring the caster wanting to change damage type on a spell (outside of his means) instead of just casting a spell with the right damage type (inside of his means)?
Since the thread is off the rails anyway at the moment...
This is touching on the old Quadratic Wizards/Linear Fighters thing though. Casters are already changing reality in a way non-casters simply can't. In this case, a player is trying to change reality even more then the rules strictly allow for.*
Can you come up with a similar example of how a Rogue or Barbarian would want to expand the use of one of their class features, and what you would consider to be reasonable in this regard?
*Personally I would say that applying a metamagic effect to the casting would be reasonable for a Wish spell, so if a spell doesn't have enough Area of Effect, allowing it to be cast as a Widened spell would be ok IMHO.
So it seems that the most sane interpretation is that Beastkin, Kitsune, Anandi etc. have a default/birth form, another form (usually human) they can assume via Change Shape, but once they have assumed any one form, they stay in it indefinitely, until they actively Change Shape back again.
So no form is an active Polymorph effect, other Polymorph effects do not need to counteract anything, benign or otherwise, but the Change Shape ability can be used to try and counteract an ongoing Polymorph effect, as long as the shapeshifter in question can perform the necessary Concentrate action.
Does that sound about right?
So if I understand the arguments so far correctly, while a Bestkin changing between human(oid) and hybrid forms is an active Polymorph effect, actually maintaining either form is not.
So it does not matter what form they are in, Polymorph effects affect them normally.
They just have an innate ability to 'shake off' a detrimental Polymorph effect, thanks to their innate Change Shape ability. At least if said Polymorph effect still allows them the mental wherewithal to actually use their ability.
I suppose that is the interpretation that both makes most sense and is the easiest to actually play with. It also means, a Beastkin in human(oid) form does not trigger Detect Magic.
Thank you all for your input.
So Beastkin, the rare versatile heritage, are stated as having their hybrid form as their 'default' form. Which means, if they use their innate Change Shape ability to assume their human(oid) form, they are under a constant Polymorph effect, correct?
Because any other Polymorph effect, for instance from Baleful Polymorph, would have to pass a counteract check to actually affect the 'disguised' Beastkin.
If so, what is the spell level of that effect? Counteracting says:
So for Beastkin in human(oid) form, it would be a 'character level divided by 2, round up' then?
Also, even a beneficial spell like Enlarge would fight with a Beastkin's human(oid) form then. Interesting.
Especially if you also want to be a Dragon while doing it. Before lv. 16, only with Dragon Disciple + Free Archetype.
Of course, a Fighter MCing Wizard gets a 6th level spell slot at lv. 16 too.
Why would I ever help the fighter? Their +2 has them covered. I'd sooner help myself
If it's just about hitting, then yes.
When it comes to 'who has the right elemental rune on their beatstick to deal with resistance/vulnerability', it might turn out that a hit/crit from the Fighter is worth more then a hit from you. A lot more in corner cases.
Also, this cuts both ways: If you are a ranged Rogue... would you rather roll for Stealth every round, or would it be helpful if the Fighter sacrificed one of his own actions to trip or grab a foe, enabling your ranged Sneak Attack? Or, if your Rogue has the right feat(s), just keeping the enemy frightened?
Because a Sneak Attack from a Rogue can easily be worth more then a Fighter's 2nd strike, and it will be worth more then their 3rd.
So yeah, you will help the party if your action is worth less then whatever the one you are enabling is doing with theirs.
Incidentally, that is also why buff spells are worth so much more on the martials now. No more CoD-Zilla. No more divine metamagic and Nightsticks.
Then there is the fact that 80% of people straigth up ignore actual use case when talking about casters and jump straight to white room where the caster somehow has everything perfect, and even then they tend to fall behind to classes just doing 2 strikes.
Then there is the fact that 80 % of people straight up ignore actual use cases when talking about martials and jump straight to the white room where the martial somehow has everything perfect, and even then they tend to fall behind to classes just getting 10th level spell slots, 3 or 4 slot per spell level in all but 10th level instead of 2 up to 6th, and legendary casting instead of master.
... Sounds stupid when you put it like that, doesn't it?
Yeah, the classes who get master or legendary weapon proficiencies, get to max out their attack stat, class features that boost weapon damage and class feats that make them better at hitting things with other things are better at hitting things with other things then the caster classes.
And what do the casters get instead? Just the measly ability to rewrite reality. What a rip-off... /s
Yes, a 'simple' caster class that just works out of the box like a Fighter would be nice. But how, pray tell, do you figure you can handle such a complex theme as magic? How much would you (have to) dumb it down to make the class 'simple'?
What would 'opt-in complexity' even look like for a caster? Spell access? Sorcerors are simple then. They get their spells locked in, and then you just fire off your slots.
A Warlock-equivalent maybe, one that gets a 'blasting spell' roughly on par with a ranged martial and is supposed to be the 'blaster caster'? Wouldn't get any other spells though. But hey, as long as you get to blast at-will/all day long, that may be just enough?
Or how much reality-altering power would the casters need to pay in exchange for trying to compete with the martials? All of it? Because otherwise, they would still obsolete martials? Some? But then they must still be inferior to martials at martial things.
I just don't see a non-complex caster class, not in this edition or any other. Magic is complex, and if you try to make it simple, you will just end up making it mundane.
But yes, it means the caster classes are the least rookie-friendly ones.
Funny how I didn't mention any of those terms, nor said they were good. So, no idea why you are responding to me about those. Also, funny how you try to spin my post to "all those team games are built to work against each other" when that part of my post was in reference to PvP games where it doesn't matter how you get to the end "winning" is "winning" doesn't matter how you got there. Its why my example was Chess (one of the oldest games in the world).
*Shrug* You are the one who dragged PvP games into this. If you don't know why you did that, *I* certainly can't help you with that. My point was that roleplaying games are supposed to be cooperative, and that things that foster adversarial competitions are bad for that.
Also, for RPGs the idea is usually 'the way is the goal', so it absolutely does matter how you get to the end.
And that is why there needs to be classes of different complexity. Players wanting complex classes are catered to, but at the same time, those not wanting complexity are not left behind either.
That does require both classes to still perform roughly the same though. That's all there is to it.
People wanting easy mode and people wanting challenge could always coexist, the issue was not that they couldn't coexist. The issue has always been mismatched expectations as to what type of character is appropriate, which has nothing to do with "easy vs complex" or "low power vs high power" but bad communication and people not compromising.
... You do realise though, that 'people no compromising' was
a) a problem almost solely because of the mismatched power levels of classes in previous editions and
b) that an experienced player can 'tone it down', but an inexperienced one can not 'tone it up', or at least not without losing control of their own character.
Which is exactly why, no, they really could not coexist at the same table.
Enabling both simple and complex classes to give the exact result just makes the people playing the complex classes feel bad. Telling players "Oh, you don't play those unless you want to play a hard class" is textbook ivory tower design. The very same thing you decried at the start of your post.
That's the problem of the players expecting more power. PF2 just isn't the right game for them I'm afraid.
And yes, if the game doesn't come clean about the fact that the classes are supposed to perform roughly the same, that is not ideal. Still, PF2 is better about it then previous iterations. For example, most classes are perfectly functional just with their base features, and class feats are basically side-grades and extra options. Therefore, there are not so much 'trap' options, but rather feat combinations that work better then others. And that's why the retraining rules explicitly allow retraining them, if a player find he made ill-informed choices in the past.
Finally, the whole "experienced and inexperienced players can play together at the same table is a great achievement", is literally ignoring all other games. You are literally congratulating PF2 for doing the bare minimum of any TRPG, that's not a great an achievement it's the base standard.
I still feel like congratulating PF2 for doing it after D&D 3.x failed so spectacularly, and even PF1 could not fix what WotC had broken.
'Ivory Tower' game design, trap options, gating... all toxic things for a game that is supposed to be played together instead of against one another, things that the PF2 devs tried to get rid of.
Some people like to play in 'easy' mode, some people prefer 'hard' mode. But in other editions, these people could not peacefully coexist at the same table.
Edit: Also what Mathmuse said about classes based on story archetypes. That.
Because at the end of the day, for all its mechanical glory and combat focus, Pathfinder is still very much a role-playing game. And if anything, enabling both the simple and complex classes to contribute roughly equally (martials still don't get to rewrite reality like casters, but whatever) to both the co-operative storytelling and tactical combat parts of the game, and thus both experienced and inexperienced players to play together at the same table, is an amazing achievement.