A different interpretation is that concealment works when you target, and you have to target before you can hit. The force thing you fire is unerring, but you may be aiming at the wrong mark.
Search Posts
Who says anything about identical sets though? And what is 'identical' when each feat is an ability and having different ones is completely normal. And identical sets of spells is kind of absurd. I probably don't understand at all what you mean at this point...Yes, but what I mean is, why should all oracles in Golarion have access to an identical set of abilities and spells? If there is someone who gets unique bits of divine power from a stranger mystery, aren't they an oracle too?What's an oracle?Oracles though are very distinct, like many of magical classes. Divine curses giving full repertoire of spellcasting abilities are rather outstanding. They could be called differently in different places though. Sorry for the late reply. I mean identical sets of abilities and spells that they are able to learn, if they so choose. I don't think that it's something required for an NPC to belong to a class. A fighter NPC with some rogue 12th level feat they couldn't possibly get from the dedication if they were a PC, doesn't break my immersion at all, for example; same if they have sheer numbers unattainable by PCs of that level - they are just especially good at something. And if they happen to have access to some totally unique spell or ritual, even less.
What is a wizard in the game world, though? Ok, wizards aren't the best example here because there are actual schools they can graduate from, but what's a rogue? What's an oracle? Is there some Golarion standard that grants you those titles when you show that you are able to learn a specific set of abilities, but not certain others? Well I completely disagree. I see little in-world reason for any two wizards (and even less for other spellcasters) having to have the ability to learn the exact same set of abilities and spells, nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't break my suspension of disbelief that some wizard NPC has got a unique ability to use spells a different wizard (PC or not) can't access. There are common abilities, sure, but they don't define what a wizard is, nor the limits of their potential.
What's an oracle?Oracles though are very distinct, like many of magical classes. Divine curses giving full repertoire of spellcasting abilities are rather outstanding. They could be called differently in different places though. Yes, but what I mean is, why should all oracles in Golarion have access to an identical set of abilities and spells? If there is someone who gets unique bits of divine power from a stranger mystery, aren't they an oracle too?
Because the way the developers envisioned PCs finding their path to immortality is by sticking to some kind of cause with great dedication. Just being very good at fighting or casting spells isn't enough to be a mythic character.
What is a wizard in the game world, though? Ok, wizards aren't the best example here because there are actual schools they can graduate from, but what's a rogue? What's an oracle? Is there some Golarion standard that grants you those titles when you show that you are able to learn a specific set of abilities, but not certain others? One fighter may have a special talent that allows them to learn and use an ability like Exacting Strike, while another fighter isn't fit for that and instead does something different - maybe something unique to them, even though they are just another human fighter.I mean, there have been many football players in the world, but no matter how much they trained, none could possibly learn to dribble the way Garrincha did, except for Garrincha himself (mind you, I'm not saying dribbling with the same proficiency as Garrincha - even though that's already very hard to match - but with his own style, his own kind of... feats). Does that mean that he wasn't part of the 'footballer' class? Nope, he was, just in his distinctive way, with his unique skills. PC rules are for PCs - who will have some abilities they probably won't ever see replicated by others. NPCs are something else, and they can also have a knack to do things in a way that is only meant for them.
My Thaumaturge player decided to go with starknife as his main weapon, but we are still at the other end of 'endgame'. I'll let you know in a few years :)
I didn't want to use Free Archetype (or any other optional rules) for my first PF2e campaign, but the potential fourth player backed out and I thought FA was a good way to compensate in part.
It makes no narrative sense to say that the rogue is incapable of not striking a weak spot - or, in general, that a character is incapable of turning off an ability they have. The rules leave all these corner cases out because there is a limited page count, and since you are generally striking enemies and trying to do as much damage as possible, that's what is covered by the rules. And being a slave to RAW is pointless, because in an open game like this, you will always have to adjudicate things that are not covered by it.
The idea that minions are actually controlled by the GM dates way back; I remember similar discussions about animal companions in PF1.
I for sure don't want to repeat the burnout I had when I started to write down my PF1 campaign, and had to stat a long series of NPCs. I got really bored really quickly.
Shazam! (the superhero, not the genie). Music Lore is an obligatory pick.
I agree too. A 3 PCs party doesn't only lack in 'power', but also in versatility; being one level higher than expected covers the power gap and can also give back some breadth of options; free archetype does the rest.
I mean, red dragons were tagged as Chaotic Evil beofre the remaster, which was always a guideline and never meant that one of them couldn't have a different behavior. If we extrapolate the behavioral traits "Arrogant", "Brutal" and "Greedy" from their description, we get quick suggestions about their typical behavior that could be useful to a GM to roleplay them, especially in case of a random encounter with "generic red dragon #14" or something like that. Besides, such a system of non-mechanical traits could also be used for other things. Terrains, for example: I have seen people asking for a way to sort creatures by habitat multiple times.
Show up as Popeye the Sailor and say you misunderstood.
Slingslinger confirmed for future book! But no slingunner.
Most people here agree that alignment was more useful as a loose guideline for monsters and NPCs behavior than the PCs' one.
That's why when a powerful cleric comes to town, everyone goes to give their welcome and reaches out to touch them as the cleric passes by.
Yeah, I'm running this in foundry too. If I can figure out a way to blow up the dimensions of the rooms, maybe it can work... I don't know if it works well with the premade module, but in general you can try editing the scene settings and halving the grid size.
I also second the idea of keeping the witch at level 4. If you don't want to add minions because you envisione the encounter as something with a lone enemy, you can still increase the challenge with one or more appropriate hazards.
As far as I know, spell attack rolls aren't ranged attack rolls. Tempest Oracle should be ok in that regard.
Oh and I hope to hear something about the Battle Oracle, that's too bad to be true.The removal of Martial Proficiency? Having your weapon proficiency come and go is a problem rather than a boon. What happens if you miss your Strikes? You have to recast the spell (hard to do at lower levels, when your focus pool is likely just 1 point) or switch to a simple weapon, because your martial one has become deadweight. I'd rather have the Battle Oracle stick to simple weapons (you can always take feats or dedications to change that) and Battle Trance grant a different effect, than the mess it is now.
Saying: "You have the option to do this, but it doesn't work and you die" isn't good ruling.
Oh and I hope to hear something about the Battle Oracle, that's too bad to be true.
There's the thing about the number of Oracle spell slots, too.
It's also the only one that becomes a bigger problem if you can't stop and refocus immediately after the encounter. It's still probably manageable in most situations, but unique in its way of hurting you.
The 10 minutes after a fight has pretty much always been there. The old red box d&d assumed that a fight always lasted a whole "turn" (10 minutes), because it included catching your breath, ensuring that the enemies were really down, checking their possessions, doing a basic search of the dungeon room, and other stuff like that. Now, of course there are situations where that doesn't make sense - if you have to run away, for example, or if you are in some kind of gauntlet where more enemies are coming or you have to press on quickly. That's part of the game, but you are still measuring time in rounds in that case, and damage shouldn't accrue up to unmanageable levels.
I will try to expand on the idea I mentioned before. The goal of this thread is brainstorming ideas to give casters more longevity and avoiding them getting starved (and less impactful) when the adventuring day drags on - which is also the strongest incentive to reduce the adventuring day length, often a narrative problem.
So, I'll try to apply my idea to the current PF2e rules, and to prepared casters specifically (but it's easy enough to extend it to spontaneous ones). What are my goals here? The main one is extending the durability of spellcasters throughout the adventuring day, of course, while not giving them more power then they currently have. And also keeping things simple, without too much bookkeeping. As we know, casters are intended to have roughly one spell per rank, for each non-trivial encounter - in addition to focus spells, cantrips and consumables. This is what the developers consider balanced, and it probably is; the problems can come from two directions: going nova, by expending more high-rank slots during the same combat; or the opposite, not having/using enough of them and thus having subpar efficiency and probably a bad experience. We are mostly interested in solving the second problem, which we can further break down with three possible causes: having gone nova earlier, being too stingy with those slots in fear of not having enough later, or the adventuring day stretching longer than expected. So, what if we ensure that our caster will always have at least one usable slot of the highest ranks? We should be good: the PC won't ever have more spells than they already do (max power doesn't increase), and they will be able to contribute to every encounter enough, no matter how many of them the adventure requires. Here is a possible implementation (probably not the best): Conserve Preparation (Free Action)
Just giving this ability to Wizards, or to other prepared classes, would make them able to go on adventuring further, without touching any other thing in the game. The cost is some bookkeeping, as you have to flag which expended spells you will be able to get back. A possible alternative based on the same idea: changing the ability into "Recall Spell", which you use to simply get an expended spell back (still one per rank, per Refocus) - that would give more versatility, and should probably cost actions (or maybe a focus point) so that you can't just spam more top-rank spells when going nova. Does this address the problems I described? I think it does.
If the expectation is to cast a top-rank spell for every (non-trivial) encounter, then a solution could be exactly that: you have a top-rank spell that you can recharge between encounters, like you do with focus points. Or more likely, one spell per rank. But if you want to cast more than one, you start eating into a limited and non-rechargeable resource that is then gone for the day.
Rather, the problem is that though the character Stargazer was supposed to be 3rd level like the rest of the party, the player had no time to figure out what feats and spells Stargazer would take at 3rd level. And she likes to read and reread all the feats before picking one. She had not touched her character sheet. I'd suggest something that helps with the construction of giant towers of stone, or avoids crashing down into the desert sand.
TBH Goku would go and free Rovagug and wait for him to be fully recovered and at full strength.So Goku instead of Worf?Goku would literally wish for beings like Gorum and Rovagug to show up at his doorstep. More like Vegeta (who actually did that with Cell), but I guess Goku would too.
The next edition will have the classes named C1, C2, C3...
2.5 feet forth, and 2.5 feet back.
Seems fishy to me. Doubly suspicious, since fishes haven't got any tongues at all.
There used to be this rule:
All spell slots you gain from spellcasting archetypes have restrictions depending on the archetype I don't know if it's still a thing after remaster, I can't reference it now. Anyway, I don't think that when a Summoner takes Wizard dedication, the Wizard spells they get should become signature ones... that doesn't even make sense.
if sometimes the conditions are far from optimal and you have to adapt, that's not entirely bad. I was referring to my previous comment, where I listed some actions that you can do even when your class abilities are completely shut down. I think there are two possible reactions to such a situation: one is to sit down and do nothing but complain that this single monster is especially nasty for you; the other is trying to find some way help, even if you are less effective than usual.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy: you don't need a plan B because situations when you would need it just won't happen. Except that they do, sometimes.
A slowed Magus probably won't be able to Spellstrike as long as the condition stands, losing their most effective and useful tool, the one its player wanted to play with; does that mean that we should never use that condition on them? Or simply that putting a Slow-spamming enemy in every encounter is bad adventure design? Maybe it's a stupid example, but I hope it makes my point of view more clear: if sometimes the conditions are far from optimal and you have to adapt, that's not entirely bad.
Again, if your character is built around the single idea of doing damage in a specific way, that's ok, but it also comes with the drawback that when that way isn't viable, you are ill-suited for this fight - not that much different from a melee martial against a flying enemy. It's only really a problem if it happens too often. And even removing all class-specific abilities, you can still Seek and Point Out the invisible wisp, Demoralize it, Grab or Trip it, soak some damage, Aid your allies, help them with flanking, heal with Battle Medicine if you have it, or just try your luck and Strike with some weapon - a natural 20 will probably take out a good chunk of the enemy's HP.
Yeah, I mean, if you build a Kineticist that only uses offensive impulses, that's your choice - it's like taking exclusively fire spells and meeting a fire-immune enemy.
Yeah, I mean, it would be strange if you did something on one side, and the aura kept coming from the other.
I don't think you can have two auras, but you can decide which of your copies the aura comes from each time you act - which means when you activate it, or when you activate the mirror. I'm dubious if you can change the aura's location when you act in some other way.
I dislike any game rule that reaches into the real world, you just gave me another good reason to. I just give hero points when the PCs deserve them.
The last one is more about Acrobatics for me... you spin around and make the enemy dazed, or at least distract them by make them wonder what the heck you are doing.
I've got an objection. If a class with 10 HP/level, the best AC of the game, extra damage reduction from armor and Shield Block goes down with two hits, every other character would have faced the same fate or worse.
Good critique about Hampering Sweeps.
It should be Combat Patrol.
See it from the other side: would you say that it's a "fun" option if the GM had a no save, no check, thing that completely removed several/most of your character's abilities and did that in every fight? Hard disagree. Having a monster once in a while doing something very strong that players have, as you say, to deal with, is ok beacuse it breaks the mold. Having a PC do the same means it's a constant in most fights, and absolutely boring.
While I don't think that a 'petition' is going to be useful; anyway, I already said so in the other thread, so I clearly agree with the idea of making (a more balanced) Hampering Sweeps a class feature of the Guardian, and to turn Taunt into a feat.
You know, it wouldn't be a bad idea to swap them: a non-broken version of Hampering Strikes as a class feature, and Taunt as a level 1 feat.
You can just roll a d10.
Your argument is very solid: Stunned 1 can't possibly be stronger than Stunned for 1 round, and situations that allow for that to happen should be patched somehow.
|