Lycar's page

So in PF 1 there are two spells for breaking curses: Remove Curse and Break Enchantment, available to many spell lists, including Clerics and Wizards.

In PF 2, however, the Break Enchantment spell is nowhere to be found, and Remove Curse is on the Divine and Occult spell lists exclusively.

So, playing a toon in Strength of Thousands, where a certain prestigious school of magic only teaches the Arcane and Primal traditions, the two that don't get access to Remove Curse...

Or in other words, how do Wizards and Druids etc. go about dealing with curses?

Did you watch the Twitch Stream about Pathfinder Remastered?

Can we just talk about the colours for a momentt?

Left: Jason Buhlman, Director of Game design: Warm, reddish colours and lighting -> Red Oni

Right: Logan Bonner, Pathfinder Lead Designer: Cold, bluish colours and lighting-> Blue Oni

On the left side: Exuberant, giddy, enthusiastic about the project.

On the right side: Calm, collected, 'just the facts', almost technocratic.

So... I wonder, is that colour scheme intentionally crafted for the occasion or just 'a happy accident'?

So... apparently that is a skill feat that exists.

I am just [strike]completely[/strike] mostly baffled as to... why? What does it even do? I mean, a PC can already punch/shove/skewer/pummel/stab/clobber/cut/disintegrate a fool who so much as looks at them funny.

The only potential use I could see is, if they would just have to roll initiative to see if they get the action off before the intended victim goes, and Say That Again! makes the action just happen without the intended victim getting a chance to get an action in edgewise?

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:
"If an effect’s level is unclear and it came from a creature, halve and round up the creature’s level."

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.

So I have a question about the interaction between the Fighter's Bravery feature and the Resounding Bravery feat.

Bravery makes a rolled success on a Will save vs a Fear affect count as a critical success:"When you roll a success at a Will save against a fear effect, you get a critical success instead."

Resounding Bravery says, "When you critically succeed at a Will save against a foe's ability,... These benefits are doubled if you critically succeed against a fear effect."

So, if I parse this correctly, if a Fighter rolls a normal success on a Will save, nothing happens. If he crits, he gets the benefits from Resounding Bravery. So far, so good.

But if the save is triggered by a Fear effect, a success gets upgraded to a critical success. And Resounding Bravery refers to just critically succeeding (which you do automatically on a success) and not to 'rolling a critical success'.

Would it therefore mean that a Fighter who succeeds on a Fear save gets a +2 status bonus to saves and a number of temporary Hit Points equal to their level for 1 minute?

Seems like intimidating a Fighter with a decent WIS and Resounding Bravery is potentially self-defeating.

If a Fighter were to use a +1 Striking gauntlet (Cinderclaw Gauntlet) on his main hand and wield a sword in his off hand, the sword would be +1 striking thanks to the Doubling Rings.

If that Fighter were to perform a Dual-Handed Assault, I am believing that by RAW the Doubling Rings would not provide their function during that strike, as "the benefit doesn’t apply ... if you’re holding a weapon but not wielding it", which would apply to the gauntlets during a two-handed swing.

Is that correct?

Okay, Disarm is widely regarded as a waste of an action, because its effect ends at the start of an enemy's turn, so it is pointless.

Consider, however, using it as an AoO. Sure, dealing damage brings the foe closer to destruction, and in most cases, this is what you want to do. But if you won't be dropping the foe with your AoO, then imposing a Slow 1 or -2 to attacks for 1 round is potentially the difference between you staying on your feet for another round.

So yeah, Disarm, as all skill actions, is a 'sometimes' thing. And the time to use it is as an Attack of Opportunity.

So, there are several debates raging over just how boned Wizards are in PF2.

I was wondering why nobody seems to be talking about the Learn a Spell activity (CRB page 238, upper right corner).

In PF 1, the DC to add a new spell to your book was 15 + Spell Level, a.k.a. 'trivial'. In PF 2, not so much. Not only does the DC scale much higher, the tight math means you can't just cheese your skill modifier like in 'the good old days'.

In other words, the chance of not learning a new spell is not trivial.

Soo... Fess up everybody, who here is outright ignoring the Learn-a-Spell rules?

Uh... can we talk about werebeasts in PF2 for a moment?

I don't mind that weres no longer have any damage resistances (boo, hiss) because frankly, DR is a female doggy to deal with. Now they just get extra hurt by silver.

But the real kicker is: In PF1, only true weres could pass on the Curse of Lycanthropy, but not infected ones. It appears that in PF2, both true AND infected weres can create more weres by biting people.

This... is troublesome. Sure, werebeasts are a lot easier to kill now, what with no resistances and a vulnerability, but runaway infection scenarios are a thing now. Just think wererats and a mayor city with extensive sewer systems.

So... how does the world prevent to be overrun?

So it would seem that casters are a bit overnerfed right now because everyone and their pet make their saving throws all the damn time /hyperbole.

I was thinking, Fighters get ahead of the curve by becoming Experts, Masters and Legends earlier then other melee types. But only in ONE category of weapon.

Rogues get to get ahead of the curve in skills. By getting lots of skill feats.

So... casters are worried about the anemic save DCs of their spells, and they currently only ever become Experts at spellcasting.

So how about casters get bonus Metamagic Feats like Fighters and Rogues, and they use them to become Experts, Masters and eventually Legends... in their respective spell schools.

A dedicated Evoker for example might get a progression like a Fighter, but must keep all non-evocation spells at the usual progression. A generalist would get no special bonus. There is a price for 'sitting on the fence' after all.

Thoughts?

... it would be a terrible waste if this wasn't expanded to a double-page table, with entries for Expert, Master and Legendary skill uses too!

As is stands now, you spend a feat-equivalent to up a skill from, say, Trained to Expert. As it stands now, that all that this gets you is a +1 to your skill rolls. Even with the new step-10 system, this a bad feat in and of itself.

And the fact that new uses of skills are effectively gated behind those 'skill increase feats' effectively makes then: Feat taxes.

In my opinion, feat taxes are bad and ought to be avoided wherever possible.

Take for example the 'Kip Up' skill feat. You need to be a Master in acrobatics to get to stand up from prone without provoking, also you MUST do it as a Reaction.

But what if you'd rather keep your Reaction (because you are fighting with a shield maybe) and spend an action to get up, but would like to avoid an AoO? Even though not everyone even has AoOs?

Would it not be much better if, for example, an Expert can get up as a single action without provoking, or maybe a huge bonus to his AC, a Master can do it as a Reaction or without provoking, and a Legend can do what the feat promises as a matter of fact?

A feat worth taking would be something along the lines of 'Kip Up and Strike', you may take an action to get up and strike, but your attack counts as the second attack on your turn and takes a -5 to-hit penalty?

There is a lot of tweaking to do here, but the bottom line is: Getting a new level of skill mastery ought to open up new uses of the skill as a matter of fact, skill feats ought to build up on that, not lock things out so nobody can try them at all.

Disclaimer: I have just looked over the class and not actually playtested it yet.

However, my gut feeling for the class is that it is pretty awesome... as a prestige class.

As as base class? Atrocious. :(

Anyone remember the Factotum? A class that made the Rogue pretty much obsolete and which's very own fluff reads like the essential description of a prestige class: Someone who has spent years (as what, Commoner?!) to hone his skills and abilities to use flashes of insight to boost his performance.

That would have made an awesome prestige class indeed. But as a base class it just made other classes non-viable and that is a bad thing.

Add to that that, in and of itself, the Avenger is basically a crappy Fighter-wannabe who can only deal with encounters that contain no magical threats. And as the whole class is built around the assumption that you will be operating ALONE(!), he can only really mop up mooks. He may do that well enough but any threat of his own level is a coin toss. :(

The Stalker would be better suited as a Rogue archetype, or better yet an alternative Rogue class like the Ninja. They get sneak attack for crying out loud!

The Warlock... Uh, what exactly are you doing if you do not take all the Arcane Training talents? Spells are the only reason you are a Warlock Vigilante to begin with, right? So you end up being a half-caster who needs to spend a good portion of his supposed class features to be one. What?! Now if those Arcane Training talents were available to all Vigilantes, in slightly weaker form of course...

The Zealot looks just like an Inquisitor with the whole dual identity gimmick tacked on. As for his casting, same issue as the Warlock.

Bottom line: Needs work. If this is supposed to be a base class, maybe make the character actually grow into the whole dual identity thing over the first three or so levels. Unless you feel that first level characters ought to be already much more larger then life then the usual mechanics make them out to be (remember: Death comes sudden and easy on level 1 2 and sometimes 3!).

Question:

Certain Conjuration spells, such as Acid Arrow/Splash, Adhesive Spittle, Snowball or Stone Discus for example ignore Spell Resistance (as does the Crystal Shard psionic power).

The rationale being that these spells do not project a magical effect at their target, but rather create an object or substance magically and then merely propel this totally non-magical stuff at the target.

So far so good.

However, if the spell effectively creates a projectile, should same projectile not be subject to being deflected or even intercepted by the Deflect/Snatch Arrow line of feats?

Think about it: The feat is supposed to work even on the vials alchemical bombs are delivered in and bullets. And even if one argues that the snowball from a Snowball spell is a magically charged item, that leaves two questions:

1) What was the rationale for the missile not being subject to Spell Resistance again?

2) So is an +1 flaming arrow. And that one can be deflected or snatched just fine.

So, this is not a RAW question. By RAW, an Acid Arrow is not a thrown weapon or piece of ammunition. So no deflecting or snatching it.

The question is: Should it be?

Think about it: If these spells have the privilege of ignoring Spell Resistance, should they not be made to pay for that privilege by becoming subject to interception, just as any other missile they claim to be?

So apparently it is generally agreed that one of the many woes a Rogue faces is his low attack bonus. Or rather, not having an innate means to boost his own to-hit.

The one defining class feature of the Rogue is his Sneak Attack. Which is presumed to represent the Rogue's ability to hit where it really does some damage. And with the right Rogue talents, even more then just hit point damage. However, not everything has a 'discernable anatomy'. Or maybe you figure that denying that one enemy his AoO is more important then doing a few HP damage.

Therefore I propose the following House Rule: As long as a Rogue is entitled to a Sneak Attack (ignoring if the target is immune to sneak attacks), he can chose to trade in a d6 of Sneak Attack damage for a +1 (precision) bonus to to-hit.

That way, you can chose to gamble on a damaging hit by applying all your SA dice to damage, or you can play it save and trade away some damage to increase your chance of hitting in the first place. Effects like bleeding etc. would still key off your full amount of SA dice (or maybe just the number of damage dice you didn't trade in for accuracy, not sure about this). That way, the Rogue would be a lot less disadvantaged by targets immune to Sneak Attacks. His vaunted precision at hitting vulnerable spots would then simply turn into precision at hitting at all.

Thoughts?