So wait sure strike got rightfully changed but not its higher level counter part that does the same thing? o.O

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Squark wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Squark wrote:

The issue is that PC1 didn't break existing characters. We couldn't build any wizards with the old subclasses, but the existing ones could soldier on. So people who liked the old oracle (and alchemist) created characters thinking they could just keep playing the old version. Bu that wasn't the case, and now those characters just don't work under the current ruling

You do realize the existing wizards got kneecapped just like the Oracles did right?

No, PFS Wizards did not. They kept their old subclasses. No new spells going forward will have spell schools, but the remaster guidelines let them reference a spell's old school if it had one. "Wizards built using the Core Rulebook chassis may continue to treat spells that had their spell school removed as part of the Remaster as if they have spell schools. They must otherwise fully update their remastered spells.

Example: An evocation wizard may still select electric arc as an evocation cantrip. "

Not as simple as you make it out to be as all wizards got their spells force updated.

I'm confused. I don't see how you can compare the mild inconvenience of temporarily switching AoN to legacy mode to look up what spell school a spell used to be with the barely playable mess of a fraken class trying to play an unremastered oracle forced to use the new versions of the mysteries.

Because legacy electric arc is remaster electric arc. If you can't even get that correct then it's a hell of a lot more complicated than you think.

And yes before you try and say it isn't there was erratta the day of Player Core 1 that eliminated ability modifiers from spells like EA.

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Squark wrote:

The issue is that PC1 didn't break existing characters. We couldn't build any wizards with the old subclasses, but the existing ones could soldier on. So people who liked the old oracle (and alchemist) created characters thinking they could just keep playing the old version. Bu that wasn't the case, and now those characters just don't work under the current ruling

You do realize the existing wizards got kneecapped just like the Oracles did right?

No, PFS Wizards did not. They kept their old subclasses. No new spells going forward will have spell schools, but the remaster guidelines let them reference a spell's old school if it had one. "Wizards built using the Core Rulebook chassis may continue to treat spells that had their spell school removed as part of the Remaster as if they have spell schools. They must otherwise fully update their remastered spells.

Example: An evocation wizard may still select electric arc as an evocation cantrip. "

Not as simple as you make it out to be as all wizards got their spells force updated.

The issue is that PC1 didn't break existing characters. We couldn't build any wizards with the old subclasses, but the existing ones could soldier on. So people who liked the old oracle (and alchemist) created characters thinking they could just keep playing the old version. Bu that wasn't the case, and now those characters just don't work under the current ruling

You do realize the existing wizards got kneecapped just like the Oracles did right? Also anyone who had half a brain knew the Alchemist was getting a complete rewrite. The class was a mess to the point where the amount of effort to get it to work was just too much.

I'll reserve judgement for when the books comes out, as obviously we're working with limited data. So far though what I'm seeing doesn't look like it will get me what I want out of Mythic; that is, the ability to take on and fight mythic level threats such as the Archdemons of 1e. Narrative power is great, but I want mechanical power too, and what effectively amounts as a +2 a limited amount of times at level 20 doesn't look like it'll help you take out a level 29 foe. Unless they print the demigods at lower level and give them mythic power to compensate, which honestly would feel lame.

Point is, my point of view is that if Treerazer is the expected ceiling of regular adventurers, that ceiling for Mythic adventurers should be Cyth V'Sug. Until I see more, this doesn't feel like what I'm hoping for.

Desril wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Ezekieru wrote:

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the previous level 26-30 creatures were re-balanced to be level 21-25 but with many new Mythic abilities put onto them. Their increased threat level would still exist, but it'd exist under the framework on the PF2E system instead of what they were in PF1E.

Yeah as someone who wanted 2e mythic to have 26-30 foes i'm kinda waiting to see what the if "level 21-25 mythics" truly feel like equivalent or not :O (because it does feel kinda weird if CR 26 demon lord would be level 21 mythic in 2e and lose in fight to CR 25 Treerazer who is still level 25 in 2e)

(and if CR 26-30 ALL are level 25 mythic.. Well that its own source of confusion)

I'm just surprised because canon products refer to level 26+ creatures. For instance, Osoyo the Blackfrost Whale is explicitly level 27

This is why I'm worried. They've kept most things level equal to their old CR intentionally, and there have been a couple of explicit examples of things in that range that were stated to be the appropriate level and just weren't given statblocks because they're too much (the Lantern King being 29 is another example).

So if that's the route they're going, they're retconning things, but I don't think that makes sense and I doubt it's what they're doing. But from what we have seen, mythic isn't going to let us fight those creatures either, which is a failure. I'm just hoping I'm wrong, and glad I've got Sparking Zero and Metaphor to keep me distracted until I can read the rules myself with context.

Honestly the Cyth V'Sug being mythic 25 makes me pretty certain they ARE retconning. Since we know he was previously CR 26+ (as a full demon lord).

Which for the record is totally okay, but makes it weird and obnoxious because now there's a separate power scale. Is Treerazer weaker than Cyth V'Sug? Probably. But is he weaker than a mythic balor or vrolikai? I have no idea.

In PF...

I mean technically speaking there's already an AP where you take on multiple mythic tier threats, meet an NPC who was started out with mythic tiers, and more or less become successors to one of greatest legends in Golarion. It's already very confusing.

Azothath wrote:

Currently 'lodges' keep a paperwork trail of complaints. All they can do is not accept volunteers for conventions or local hosted venues. Banning someone from PFS would be rather extreme and with email sock puppets it is going to be hard to enforce.

TBH it's volunteer run and the process to talk to people about complaints and the target of said complaints is unprofessional and just done by your local VC & RVC. It is fair? well - they create a record after the fact. Everyone is just a volunteer and doing what they know/can and it's a mix of RL experience, politics, fandom, etc.

I would just push back slightly on "unprofessional" in the sense that, while the process is run by volunteers, there is still a formal process for dealing with issues. It's fairly robust since a couple of years ago, there was a big conversation and project to improve the process.

Link to the relevant section in the venture officer handbook

I mean you have to remember the person in charge above the RVCs didn't particularly care about managing the communities. It was a stark contrast between how things were handled when Alex Spiedel became in charge.

If someone ends the scenario afflicted by Putrid Plague/Zombie Rot/Corrupting Spite: Handwave the consequences.

Ok. I gotta know. Since the rules clearly spelled this out in the first place since I dunno season 2(?) to do this how is this any different that it became a question?

Sigh. I hoped there would be a school in New Thassilon or Xin-Edasseril in this book.

Is the University of Lepidstadt a magic school? I have always thought it is a normal school, albeit very knowledgeable about the Elder Mythos and undead.

It seems that among the six schools in this book, none are from Absalom, Cheliax, or Varisia. This is quite strange, considering that Cheliax is the most powerful country in the world, and I have always thought that Varisia and Absalom are two centers of attention for Paizo developers. Does this mean that the Arcanamirium, the Egorian Academy of the Magical Arts, the Acadamae, the Order of Cyphers, and the Twilight Academy are not as prestigious as those included in this book? I'm also surprised to learn that there is no magical school in Magnimar at all.

It is confirmed that the remastered runelord archetype will appear in this book. But I heard that the ancient Thassilonian wizards actually didn't use the runelord archetype and they instead used the Thassilonian specialist archetype. Will the Thassilonian specialist archetype appear as well?

You do know the one school mentioned in this book deleted an entire army off the bat so badly that the remains are a distorted mess, went toe to toe with an actual God

Cheliax all things considered is pretty weak.

So with one of those schools having an entire AP dedicated to it will we find out what happens after it's events?

It's been a while since this thread was last updated, so I wanted to recap the progress of these predictions and what each story means.

Sky King Tomb: I think it has to do with the line "Great legacies reclaimed when they were thought lost", given the ending of this story.

Season of Ghosts: definitely "A humble village grows where there was nothing before", there are very few alternatives.

Seven Dooms of Sandpoint: no alternatives "An immense red bird rains fire on a small town"

Wardens of Wildwood: it's hard for me to pinpoint exactly what line is hinting at these events. Maybe "The return of great evils thought lost to time"?

Curtain Call: in the case of this story, I think the correct comparison would be "Beloved mortal entertainers make some deities laugh with delight, but others consume them and choke them with cruelty". Fits the operatic theme and direct involvement with the gods very well.

Triumph of the Tusk: It's hard to pin down given how little we know about these events. Maybe "Old gods fall and new gods rise in their place" or "Ultimate power within the grasp of almost countless hands" given the general events of the War of the Immortals that will be touched upon here?

Spore War: No guesswork here, it's definitely "A pale cataclysm ravages the lands, leaving corruption and tangled thorns in its wake".

Shades of Blood: Even given how little we know right now, this is an easy guess. "New lands rise from the ashes of ancient civilizations".

This leaves me with a few questions. Where do Rusthenge, Prey for Death, and the new Gravelands adventure fit into this paradigm? Anyone have any clues?

And of course, we still have a few phrases that I didn't connect to anything:

1) Two great powers declare war, and many neighbors have to pick sides
2) The sun destroyed
3) They see countless spirits shrieking in agony
4) A crowned phoenix with a peacock tail, whose return heralds vengeance upon the world

I'm most interested in events 1 and 4, to be honest. I like big wars...

Two is the new orc deities.

Thank you for running it was very entertaining and yeah even if it was short I did have fun.

pauljathome wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Like for example they completely overhauled the archetype subsystem in a way certain builds may stop working.

I must have missed something. What changed here?

Archetypes still work in general the same way. (Although I think the rules about needing 3 feats before taking a new archetype moved to general rules from being in each archetype, which is a problem for Flexible Spellcaster)

Champion dedication now gives you scaling armor proficiency, but only heavy if you already had light and medium.

Psychics that were relying on bumping unarmed to heavy armor to make use of say Imaginary Weapon (high damage melee focus spell) face significant build difficulties. (Other light/cloth casters as well)

Monk archetype Flurry now has a 1d4 round cooldown. Since Flurry never scaled it it became a problem for monk identity at levels 10+ that other martials could make significantly stronger use of flurry than a monk. So it's a sensible change for the system, but feels real bad if you had a character relying on it.

I think those are the big ones.

I was referring to how weapon proficiency is granted in archetypes which means Singular Expertise the mechanic is pointless.

It's something I caught but something I didn't realize the implications of until Sayre pointed it out.

And I think they overhauled how lore skills are given in archetypes which is a good thing.

Given the extreme overhaul to Oracle, unseen back in November 2023, and that not rebuilding an Oracle results in a non-functioning pile of mechanics, would it be the worst thing in the world to take a moment to consider and confer within the OP team whether allowing all Oracles created before August 12 wouldn’t be a good thing?

Where would you actually stop though? The only reason why we are talking about Oracles and Alchemist is the because the community is kind of loud about it.

Like for example they completely overhauled the archetype subsystem in a way certain builds may stop working. And then there's eratta to Monk and Champion Dedications. Feats that may do things completely different from how they used to work.

It's just so convoluted and it's not even done yet.

Captain Morgan wrote:

??? No, Chiurgeons did not spend actions on Draw. The elixir healing is so far behind spells that would kill the class if they had the same action cost.

For the first 5 turns at minimum, I can use items for 1A completely RaW.

As you guessed, I'll hold a generic buff in-hand. I'm the designated melee distraction, so that's Numbing/Soothing.

Independent familiar is there to hand off 2 items before they need to reload, and 1 item in a Retrieval Belt gives the familiar a turn to grab an item with no slowdown on the 1A usage. 1:Hand + 1:Belt + 3:Familiar. A pause in item use during that 5-combo will also let the familiar reload.

So... I have not really needed to draw items/elixirs in quite a while. Even before the Belt, it was once in a blue moon I ever used more than 3, and this 5 turn thing is overkill.

Quote:

I'll gladly take the various new ways to heal allies at a distance instead, and having more replenishing out of combat healing to the point you could skip treat wounds.

Man, I just disagree like crazy with that. Chiurgeons not only had enough healing at range, but this Remaster nerfs what would otherwise be their best tool for that, Healing Bomb. The old Healing Bomb healed full on a miss, and the Level 5 elixir is 3d6+6. Literally twice the healing of the FV at level 10.

The new Healing Bomb heals a pittance of splash on miss now, and needing to hit your ally's AC to heal them makes it outright unusable as a healing tool, which needs to be predictable/dependable.

At Level 10, even if it's 20ft, the new Chiurgeon FV that heals 2d6 for 2 Actions is genuinely a "useless token" that attempts to lampshade/hide the nerf from those who don't know the class or think about the numbers.

They even went out of their way to make that ranged heal an Interact just to block the tiny heal from being Quick Bomber compatible. If the new FV was a genuine 1A activity at range, giving it a new niche as a 3rd action heal...

Have you read the class or are you napkin matching this based off of incomplete information?

Did I screw up filling up your sheet? I haven't gotten the email yet.
EDIT:
My email had a typo in it. D:

Dooot doot doot doot! I found the answer when I asked the same question two years ago.

IIRC consulting with experts in the lore from those cultures.

Why are there so many weird errata for grenades? Like Im only saying this because why was their an FAQ about reusing grenades?

Honestly, the argument of "Casters are good, you're just playing them wrong," only really highlights that Casters aren't a class that gives you much build versatility, and supports the "One True Build" idealism that PF2 has tried to go out of its way to demolish by enabling a lot of ways to build a character.

I don't think that argument is arguing that you don't have a variety in builds but more you need inherently need to use tactics to play a spellcaster whereas you can sort of brute force martials.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Samir Sardinha wrote:

Nice try with Twirling Throw, but the critical failure clause destroyed the feat.

Let's hope that finisher removed the precision trait from the damage

It really doesn't destroy the feat, not only do you have assorted reroll mechanics like hero points to prevent it (which also applies to the attack itself, for big finisher damage), and need to crit fail in the first place, you could easily have a back-up weapon and grab your other weapon later. This feat is excellent for a mixed ranged/melee swash.

Crit failing an attack roll isn't that hard, especially against severe/extreme threat enemies, and even more so if its not your first attack this turn.

So this is setup such that you want it to be your first attack after you get panache and you also have a weapon to throw that you'll be okay with losing. This seems like if you take it you're also going to need a throwers bandolier so that you aren't throwing your runes away and having them clang on the floor across the room. In that specific setup it seems pretty good, but you're building around this feat at that point.

I mean it's the second feat in a chain. Of course your building around it....

Squiggit wrote:

Almost complete replacing the need for a returning rune but adding in a small chance to lose your weapon on any given attack feels like it could be very frustrating in actual play in non-ABP Games.

Honestly, I feel the opposite. A returning rune is 55 gold, and that's an entire class feat. Sure, this works for all thrown weapons and ignores some range penalties for weapons with very short range increments, but there's also the thrower's bandolier that can gather your stuff back up, and can have a returning rune put on it. So for 115 gold, you have this feat minus the range increment caveats.

Well also remember that feat is a finisher so who knows what that will mean.

I'm not sure where you are finding volatility. Any confusion can be cleared up by clearly documenting changes across versions in a way the most people can access.

This is the third iteration of the conversation Ive seen. Also, technically speaking at least one of the changes looks more like someone accidentally misread a stat block and the error wasn't caught.

That's why I'm a little hesitant to just jump on the assumption that they are fixing the scenarios full stop.

Hi there,

The concern is not a "conspiracy"; Drental commented about "Paizo internal people collaborating with contracted people" to vet Foundry modules.

In other words, Paizo people are spending work time fixing issues in one version and not another. That's great, but seems to be creating different branches of content because those changes aren't being broadcast to the community.

Whatever the case here, I do hope Paizo can leverage the effort used to create high quality Foundry modules find a way to keep things in stride for the whole community.

Right but the weirdest part out of all of this is they didn't fix all the issues. The changes in 5-16 are apparently missing an equally important change which maybe was deliberate but also looks like they just were listed in alphabetical order. But maybe they were changed but who knows????

That's why I'm on the wait and see boat because even if they are doing the changes it seems weirdly haphazard.

Also, sorry this is such a bizarrely volatile subject for people and its so confusing.

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Doug Hahn wrote:

Guess it's about where the $$ is though and who can blame Paizo.

Where is this stupid conspiracy coming from?

I don't think a conspiracy wasn't necessarily implied there. In a world where Paizo's resources are limited and there's a high-priced, high-quality product they want to deliver, it's possible for entirely non-conspiratorial reasons that they would focus on one instead of the other.

Right but what makes you think that Foundry is the priority? We don't know what the priority is. It's just rampant speculation that just comes off as a passive aggressive attack.

One piece of paid software taking up resources to the detriment of other resources (publicly accessible forums, other VTTs) is almost never a good recipe for the community. Guess it's about where the $$ is though and who can blame Paizo.

While I operated my own Foundry server for quite a long time I do miss the days when we could find scrappy simple PFS games on Google Slides and it's one of the reasons I stopped playing online.

Where is this stupid conspiracy coming from? In my ten years of Organized Play Paizo was never the best at communicating information.

This is a minor roadbump in what I've seen.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

kaid wrote:

On the that's crazy side of the kineticist side while a single usage of their crazy anime attacks are less potent than a level 10 spell they can keep doing them ALL DAY LONG. Just power level over 9000 nonsense all day every day. Even their lower level powers are hilarious. Imma block your attack by suddenly sprouting a tree to block it. Most magic users leave devastation after a fight where a wood kineticist leaves reforestation behind to the point druids have to be big fans of a guy who can beat the baddies and grow a forest at the same time.

Yeah... Timber Sentinel in particular can just trivialize certain kinds of fights. Sure, there are ways to work around it, but when the GM has to meta against a lvl 1 feat, that's a thing.

Yeah I'm baffled this doesn't even have Overflow or something on it. Just "I can spam this spell infinitely with it auto-heightening" vs how limited it is for an actual spellcaster trying to use it.

It's utility drops in a wide variety of situations and quite honestly your losing what makes the class unique spamming it.

I always was kind of confused by how little chaos War for the Crown had. It should have been more like this

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Ezekieru wrote:

Also, I do hope we get a lot more detail about the Alchemist if/when we get a blog about them! We were left with a lot more questions than answers from the Remaster panel at PaizoCon, so I hope Logan, or whoever they get to write the blog on the Alchemist, will give us a lot of detail about the class's changes in the coming weeks!

Shhh... Let them cook.

The book has to already be printing it is already as cooked as it is going to be for the moment.

I meant let them cook the advertising.

Also, I do hope we get a lot more detail about the Alchemist if/when we get a blog about them! We were left with a lot more questions than answers from the Remaster panel at PaizoCon, so I hope Logan, or whoever they get to write the blog on the Alchemist, will give us a lot of detail about the class's changes in the coming weeks!

Shhh... Let them cook.

Ok I got to know is the pun intentional? Dae is a solarian. In effect they are Sun-Dae.

Their tactic would be to go find the God who fought treerazor before and ask her for help and advice.

The one thing I will say in the defense of people critical of the decision, classes receiving extensive changes based on feedback without the chance for the new mechanics to be re-analyzed externally are the conditions under which we got the APG Witch, Investigator, and the CRB Alchemist itself.

So it's not like the trepidation is entirely out of the blue or unfounded, even if I think some of the cynicism is a bit too much. Paizo is great at making tuning passes around feedback, but sometimes when dev cycles don't have that feedback layer the results are a bit less steady.

Right but the developers didn't exactly have a good handle of how the game itself works and plays at the time which is why the Alchemist seemed so conservative by comparison.

Also no. The wonkiest of those three was Alchemist and even that wasn't an unplayable mess.

Arachnofiend wrote:

Power Creep only matters in the context of the game as a whole. Treasure Vault giving the Alchemist good enough support that struggling through your bad build no longer felt worth it isn't power creep.

Yes, it's a form of power creep. The new options are better than the old ones so playing the old ones feel worse than before. Even if in my case it was just a nail in the coffin, I was dissatisfied with my build already.

No. They compliment the new options not completely supplant them. One of the biggest problems of the Alchemist was for a class built around versatility they had none to little of it

Yeah I'm good with the expectations too. I'll get my character profile ready in a few minutes.

Can I bring a level 4 warrior bard? I'd need to get her a profile but I should be good. Hell she played with a commander recently.

Having run this scenario three times that yes while a little linear the fun comes from both the players and GM just having fun and making stuff up. In one instance I wholesale concocted an NPC fey that followed the party around, turned them into Kirby's, and had traps taunt the players. In another the players took the term war seriously and gathered all the fey into an army.

Is it just me or half of these complaints just a function of not knowing how the game works meaning they aren't even issues in the first place,?

Like technically speaking falcatta proficiency progresses to expert and wizard dedication can in theory start off legendary.

Pssttt.... Battle for the Bulwark is the wrong scenario. Fun adventure don't get me wrong but that's not what's supposed to be run at Paizocon.
EDIT:
Oooo it goes on sale to the public then. The other four scenarios are exclusive. Im a dummy.

"Don't worry we can always come back and smash the tower later. The priority now is to make sure that everyone in the town is safely evacuated."

I have no preference for pregen so you all can pick up what you want first.

I'd be interested and I honestly don't mind which NPC I play as.

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Benjamin Tait wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

keftiu wrote:

I maintain my hope that Stolen Fate's mention of the sun is a fake-out, pointing to the deities of Mzali instead of Sarenrae... but I admit, I'm starting to sweat.

Wait you found who it was over a year ago???? o.O

It's a hint to something but not necessarily this, it could easily be a hint towards something else entirely.

Keftiu was the first person in the community to know about the event months before it was ever announced. Its not referring to the deity that dies in this event but the person who kills them off. Said person is a ** spoiler omitted **.

Huh? I've pointed to Mahja Firehair because Luis Loza wrote and highlighted the PFS scenario she's relevant in as a hint to the dead deity thing, somewhere on Reddit. I don't have any secret insight, I just read a lot!

I'm pretty sure you caught it before the announcement because I thought it was odd I heard about it before the announcement.

It's also funny too because I'm fairly certain this is building up to the a PFS scenario

MadScientistWorking wrote:

keftiu wrote:

I maintain my hope that Stolen Fate's mention of the sun is a fake-out, pointing to the deities of Mzali instead of Sarenrae... but I admit, I'm starting to sweat.

Wait you found who it was over a year ago???? o.O

It's a hint to something but not necessarily this, it could easily be a hint towards something else entirely.

Keftiu was the first person in the community to know about the event months before it was ever announced. Its not referring to the deity that dies in this event but the person who kills them off. Said person is a

I maintain my hope that Stolen Fate's mention of the sun is a fake-out, pointing to the deities of Mzali instead of Sarenrae... but I admit, I'm starting to sweat.

Wait you figured out who it was over a year ago???? I'll give you a refresher hint but that prophecy isn't referring to a god and someone who has already died in setting.

Ravingdork wrote:

Zalen Raun wrote:

It's official: Thermos LLC exists on Golarion. Personally, I blame the Reign of Winter PCs.

I can't believe no one's mentioned that apparently photography is a thing on Golarion. That's 18th-century tech! Far more advanced than even the most advanced firearms on on the planet.

I think the guns from Numeria are more advanced.

To be fair Ravingdork did say on the planet and those guns aren't from that planet.

Mark Moreland wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Zalen Raun wrote:

It's official: Thermos LLC exists on Golarion. Personally, I blame the Reign of Winter PCs.

I can't believe anyone's mentioned that photography is a thing on Golarion. That's 18th-century tech! Far more advanced than even the most advanced firearms on Golarion.

I believe it's among the "Stasian" tech that has come out of Irrisen since cross-world contact with 20th Century Russia occurred in Reign of Winter.

Nice. Thanks. Is that specifically mentioned in a publication somewhere? Or is this more of an informal rationale?

Along with the Tian Xia arcades, I'm starting to wonder "what doesn't Golarion have?"

It's all starting to give me very "Avatar the Last Air Bender" to "Legend of Korra" tech advancement vibes.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1152

I really like what I'm seeing here. I like that the Directives and Lead by Example encourage more active participation in the fight alongside buffing your allies.

Maybe it's because I just saw the new Dune but a Religion-based leadership style would be very cool. Admittedly, I'm not sure what the Acts of Leadership could be outside of casting a divine spell from an archetype...

This might be a bit too GM dependent but maybe act within the edicts of your deity?

Romão98 wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

How are you supposed to attack an enemy with a MAP without some sort of AOO?

I was about to question the same thing. I'm trying to read again to be sure i'm not missing anything.

The phrasing of that Guns Blazing ability is a bit awkward. The phrase "that has a multiple attack penalty" is referring to your ranged Strike, not to the enemy.

"Make a ranged Strike that has a multiple attack penalty against an enemy" probably makes more sense!

This would allow you to do some cool things, like use "Get in There!" then Strike twice and still grant the Lead by Example benefit.

Thanks for the response. That's a pretty cool trigger for the ability.