This really is a great disappointment to me. I actually think that PF2e has a great balance as well as interesting balance to make a perfect video game system. I think the codified social rules can also help a great deal. Honestly, a game similar to Divinity: Original Sins 2 or Baldur’s Gate 3 with PF2e’s ruleset would be just what I’m looking for. I’m really hoping that Larian Studios or developers with a similar style can be brought in for a project. That said, I’m not a fan of Diablo-style games, so this does not appeal to me at all.
Two main things are that I can now play a rogue with flyssa without jumping through hoops, and I can play a rogue Red Mantis Assassin before level 8 without being human.
I love how Deriven is going "Yeah Spell Attack are terrible and no caster worth their salt would use them". While my entire complaint is partly that those spells should have and should get support so that they do actually work.
Also wow the amount of people that jumped on "do you even play the game". Way to ivory tower a conversation that has been going on for 10+ pages. See to me that just tells me you have no way to counter the fact that casters wanting to play blasters are inherently screwed by the system and just getting them to work is an exercise in fighting against the system.
If anyone wants to know if I have played I have already answered, hunt it down if you even care. It sounds more like you are trying to strawman anyways.
I really hope that you have gotten into at least one game in the 3.5 years that PF2e has been out and you have been arguing (in the academic sense) on these forums. I am really interested in how your analysis of the game measures up to experience playing over the course of a single game to six or more months playing. My first experience with a spellcaster was not enjoyable, and I thought it was because of weak saves, but then I realized that in order to get my charisma high enough to multiclass my wizard into sorcerer, I dumped wisdom and constitution. I also learned that I have the habit of playing casters like martials because I do not actually like playing caster characters in games (Skyrim, Oblivion, Shadowrun, 5e, 3.5, PF1e, etc.). I like the thrill of getting into melee. However, I have found ways when playing magus to make blasting work (for when I need something optimal and spellstrike isn't available because of range or something else), including attack spells, which usually involves a set up of some kind.
I read through this entire thread and made it to this last page without seeing this guide; I was so ready to plug this into the argument. It is a great read even without a strong knowledge of baseball. You did a paper worthy of your title, Arch Magister.
That said, blaster casters work in this game even at low levels. I am currently playing in a group of four as a rogue. The GM has Fantasy Grounds, which allows him to pull the data out of the chat logs. The sorcerer, in each game after the first, has consistently been doing almost double my damage. And he does this from twenty or more feet behind me, while I am running into the thick of melee. And the healing focused oracle was barely behind me from casting a single damaging spell in the last session. I should note that the sorcerer only ever blasts or dragon claws. This is his binary, and I am flabberghasted that all the damage I thought I was doing was purely because I was just kill stealing from my spellcasters.
Who cares about all the d8 weapons and the reach spears? I am here for the knives... I want all the knives for my rogues, and I am glad that the flyssa was added, but dang is it difficult to get full proficiency in as a rogue despite it being my favorite irl weapon and thematic for a knifey boy rogue.
Alright, OP, I think I may have an actual answer to your question, "Why do I hate the monk where everyone seems to like it?"
From my reading of the thread, it seems that you like optimized characters as a first point, and that optimization is usually in the form of dpr, which is not something that the monk will be the best at over any other martial. Because dpr is so important to you and you can get many monk-like features from other classes, that may be why you don't like them. I think you may not be taking into account the full sum of the monk abilities when combined to make a very suitable character and instead focus on a few areas and how another specifically built character can take advantage of those specific areas you focus on, while not taking into account the opportunity cost for building that character when compared to a monk, who can get those abilities and many others for a lower opportunity cost.
That said, there is nothing wrong with you not liking the monk. I hate humans and clerics in my games, or at least playing the latter. Most casting classes aside from the wizard do not appeal to me either. The inventor and gunslinger do not fit into my ideal fantasy game either. Also, I would not play a swashbuckler because I think it is a worse rogue, but I wouldn't want to play most martials because they do not get as many skills (I like monk because it does not need anything in a ABP game and lives up to my ideal of the self-sufficient character, one who is gifted from his own efforts instead of needing a weapon or a powerful bloodline or a powerful being).
So, I recently played a monk in a homebrew game, who died at level 7 (not because of any mechanical issues but because half the party ran: a wizard who didn't bother to learn his class and ran because he didn't know and probably still doesn't about drain bonded item and because the annoying druid decided to waste all his spells on creatures that were single strikes from going down and who ran immediately as the fight began against a +3 creature encounter).
Anywho, the monk I played was an elf base with the half-orc versatile ancestry, built for pure speed. My level one stats were 14 18 10 12 14 10 with increases to Strength, Dex, Wisdom, and Con at level 5. I took no stance feats, as I planned to play him as a skirmisher until level 8 when I could use ranged unarmed strikes. I stacked the orc fist to bleed on a crit as well. My feats were ki strike, stunning fist, sneak attacker, and ki blast. With free archetype, I picked up rogue dedication, mobility, and sixth pillar. I put my proficiency upgrade into reflex because I didn't want to take damage (which was useful). And yes, I made him to be "a jack of all trades [who] is a master of none, but oftentimes better than master of one." But I also wanted him to be someone who only relied on his own mind and body, trying to reach perfection of the self.
The other party member (monk, druid, and wizard mentioned previously) was a champion, who used his last action no matter what to shield. The druid was a wildshaper, who never used it and spent most of his time blasting despite saying he was a frontliner, and the wizard wasted time and resources because he never bothered to read anything. As such, I was the primary damage dealer (rocking d6s with sneak attack), but I was also only damaged one time outside of the encounter that got my character killed, and that was due to a low initiative. Most of my turns involved moving twice with two attacks inbetween, so I did not waste resources on needing to be healed. (Also, I had medicine and battle medicine since those were not affected by my being unarmed). For that final encounter, I only died because the champion decided to stay and fight, and my character couldn't abandon him. Also, I am sick of casters blowing their spells and expecting everyone to just wait another 23 hours and 45 minutes for them to recharge. I just did not expect the other two to immediately run because we had a fair shot of winning.
As for why I enjoy the monk, it is because it is a total package class: the best mobility, good offense, the second best total defenses (second best in AC), and ki spells that can eventually cover for a spellcaster's AOE damage. Sure, any other class can pick up the feats as well as flurry of blows, but by that point, I have a ranged melee attack and another action saver that makes mobility almost redundant, which another class would not be able to get until level 20. Monk is honestly the only class that I would rather stay pure if I did not have free archetype as well because each level is meaningful (and some of the feats that are claimed to be non-choices are ones I skipped over either in this build or in the others I played). And to be honest, I didn't even go with the martial artist aesthetic for the character I described above; I went for a character who was closer to Yu from the webtoon The Boxer and the fighters in the webtoon The Weak Hero (but more on the superpowered side): a pure, brutal character who only cares about crushing his enemies, but who trains to be able to punch air from his fists or kick up a strong gust.
From what you are saying, OP, it sounds like what you would want the most is a champion and then to take the Deity's Domain feat to get something from Torag or Yuelral. That would probably be the closest you can get to your character concept. And then you could pick up Oracle as you archetype and choose spell casting instead of looking to use the curses since they would be detrimental in combat.
Something like PF1's Psychic Detective Investigator.
A 'know it all' swashbuckler that gets panache off RK could be kind of neat.
TWF Magus. It feels conspicuously absent.
Something that feels a little like pistolero but two-hander compatible. Gunslinger feels weird if I use a two-handed firearm but aren't interested in athletics or stealth.
And just for mechanical/symmetry reasons without a lot of good ideas I want to see a second option for Arcane Witches and any kind of Occult Barbarian.
The int swashbuckler is the ultimate smartass. Twf magus sounds like it would be pretty powerful. If it would get something like double slice + spellstrike. Oh boy.
I actually came here to say a TWF magus as well. But I think double slice would be too powerful. Something like a change or addition to spellstrike to make it a three action activity with a second attack at MAP and allowing the spell to go off on either could be good though. It sacrifices a lot of flexibility but would be very offensive, and it would require until level 20 to do a spellstrike multiple turns in a row.
Edit: I didn't realize I was so far behind on this thread. It seems people have been talking about this already. I need to check back more regularly.
This feat gives the critical specialization for the brawling group at level 5; however, the brawling critical specialization slows the attacked creature based on a fortitude save against the class DC. Magus doesn't have a class DC and is, therefore, untrained.
For me it is not difficult at all seeing the inspiration and necessity of the bard as a class.
Orpheus was a hero for a reason.
Then there were the musicians who kept up morale before battle and while marching even as recently as the American Civil War.
And then there is the image of some guy/gal singing while throwing spells, as if in the center of a stage; it gives a different, but just as valid, image as an all powerful wizard grumbling in draconic before throwing a fireball.
As for myself, my first fully released Pathfinder Second Edition character was a bard, Virgil, who took on the form of his namesake, as an epic poet. For my sessions, I wrote out poetry lines in iambic pentameter based on imagined heroic stories or the adventures of my party. Like a song, my inspire courage was like a chorus, which wrapped around the verses of my spells and the gesticulations that heightened the performance, effectively making the performance better and tapping into the magic of the occult. While Virgil did not necessarily sing or play an instrument, it would not have been very difficult or wholly uncharacteristic to have musical accompaniment.
Oh, also poking around to figure what would be the best hybrid study/emotion combo for a cathartic mage magus to play as a Sith.
Laughing Shadow for the Hybrid Study, I’d say. There’s no real “dual wielding” hybrid study at the moment, but single hand lets you represent Vader & Dooku, so it works well.
Cathartic emotion has to be anger or hatred. It’s the Sith. C’mon.
As far as my reading goes, nothing in the laughing shadow prevents you from dual wielding either; as far as my reading of it goes, magi who dual wield can still get the speed boost and use dimensional assault; they just cannot get the benefit of the extra damage.
My current build is a dual wielding laughing shadow magus with the rogue dedication feat. Eventually, I plan on getting arcane ray to have three sources of damage (sword, spell, ray) without an attack penalty even though the last attack will be at a lower attack bonus (shadow signet would not work since it is not a spell).
Quick question: Did they manage to add an equivalent of the "ring of wizardry" or is still the arcane the only one meant to get double spells if taken as a dedication?
I'd consider getting a divine/primal dedication to help with heals if by lvl 14 I could have
Still I don't get the reason they gave only the arcane spellcasters such a magic item.
And what, about using the ring of wizardry with a magus or arcane summoner? Would be possible?
No, there isn't a Ring of Wizardry equivalent for other traditions in this book. And there's nothing from either class's kits that prevent them from using any items, so yeah, Magi and Arcane Summoners can use Rings of Wizardry.
I was referring to the fact that they won't have at some point any lvl 1/2/3/4 slots ( as there's a "-" in their spell slots progression ), so the "additional spells slots" would not be compute, since they won't have spells of that level to begin with.
Giving them the possibility to benefit from the ring would be no different from giving it to a class with just the wizard dedication ( being only able to cast cantrips ), wouldn't it?
Maybe my semantics are wrong, but my reading of the Ring of Wizardry is that you only need arcane spell casting tradition. As far as I understand, it does not say anything about needing spells of those levels, and I think one of the designers specifically wrote that ring of wizardry works with the magus (don’t quote me, as I cannot remember exactly where I read that).
For cinematic effect, I would have them act in tandem and describe it something like this:
“The arrow releases from the bow with the sound of a rushing waterfall instead of the normal twang. As the arrow approaches the target, water vapor swirls around the arrow, thrusting into the creature like a geyser and throwing it back. The arrow, pushed by the momentum of the water, twists into the creature’s flesh and stabs into the ground, pinning it.”
Hey Calybos1, have you had a game since and used the advice everyone has been talking about here? And if it hasn’t worked for you, can you describe in as much detail as possible what happened in your encounters (including level of characters and enemies, classes, enemies, and terrain)? Maybe there is something that has been overlooked because the rest of us are used to the system, and I think we would all like it if you enjoyed playing as much as we do.
So... I just realized with the new reveals about the magus that my current magus does not work anymore: I had built him with the rogue archetype and given him sneak attack and magical trickster, making him a powerful damager, but with the new changes and sneak attack being triggered off of individual attack rolls, that does not work any longer. Yet I am still stoked to see everything the magus has to offer in the new book.
How would sneak attack no longer work? You don't need magical trickster anymore. As long as they are flat-footed you should still get sneak attack.
So, in the playtest, the spellstrike was made up of the weapon attack and the spell attack, two different attacks, meaning sneak attack would trigger off of both attacks. It gave the potential for higher damage despite not being mathematically superior because of lower attack modifier for spell attacks. While the description that has been released for the new spellstrike will allow the magus to get sneak attack on a flat-footed foe, it does not give the same opportunity for two sneak attacks values (one for the melee/ranged attack and one for the spell attack). Magical trickster was not needed in the playtest to get one sneak attack, but it was needed for two with a spellstrike; now, it appears that there is very little synergy between the magical trickster feat and the magus.
So... I just realized with the new reveals about the magus that my current magus does not work anymore: I had built him with the rogue archetype and given him sneak attack and magical trickster, making him a powerful damager, but with the new changes and sneak attack being triggered off of individual attack rolls, that does not work any longer. Yet I am still stoked to see everything the magus has to offer in the new book.
From my own experience, the stealth rules work amazingly. The only downside I have faced is that I have had a couple GMs (and fellow players) who have sucked the fun out of stealth because of grognard rules and "realistic" play. For example, I was not allowed to stealth in a dungeon because someone needed light, and everyone automatically saw us. As far as I understand and have played with in groups coming to PF2e with an open mind, the stealth rules are very fun when played how I understand them.
That doesn't even make sense. I mean, the whole group wouldn't be able to sneak past anything together to save their life, but having someone walking around with a torch in the dark is a great distraction for you to hide in the shadows and use stealth for initiative.
I agree. Those two GMs sucked. I am just glad that I no longer have to play with either of them. And the worst part is that one of them is an avid user of these forums and makes up things specifically to counter the rules if (and that’s a very big if) he accepts that he is or has been reading the rules wrong, unless it is to the detriment of players.
From my own experience, the stealth rules work amazingly. The only downside I have faced is that I have had a couple GMs (and fellow players) who have sucked the fun out of stealth because of grognard rules and "realistic" play. For example, I was not allowed to stealth in a dungeon because someone needed light, and everyone automatically saw us. As far as I understand and have played with in groups coming to PF2e with an open mind, the stealth rules are very fun when played how I understand them.
Alchemic_Genius wrote:
Additionally, theres no RAW way to cast spells without revealing yourself. This isn't an issue most of the time, but it's pretty bad if, say, you are playing a trickster and sleep some guards, but, in doing so, reveal yourself to the whole patrol. Even conceal spell doesn't explicitly allow you remain hidden, or even stay hidden until the spell is done, though it feels like this is very much the implication. This isn't really an issue in home games, imo, since the rules for stealth are open ended enough to allow and encourage DMs to adjudicate these kinds of situations, and most DMs I know would not object to a wizard using Conceal Spell to drop a stealthy sleep spell on the infiltration mission to knock out the guards in a heist mission.
It takes a couple feats, but wizards do get the ability to cast stealthily by level 4; a non-wizard can pick up the same tricks by level 8.
I am in the minority here, but I enjoy the playtest Magus. Even more so than rogues, I like the combat style I use with him. Of course, I also like that I built him to take advantage of the action system: spirit sheath, slide casting, and spellstrike, allowing him to draw, store a two action spell, stride, and strike in one actions. I admit that 5-6 were a little choppy with the lower attack, but it wasn't that noticeable because I think I did a lot of the damage in the group, but I also got haste and fireball for those levels, so it wasn't that bad.
I am also not thrilled about the one attack spellstrike or recharge. The one attack probably means that either spellstrike isn't going to be available with the Magus archetype or fighter with the magus archetype will just be a better Magus. At least these are my thoughts now, but I will wait until the class is released in July to make my final judgements.
I don't see what the problem with current shields are. In other editions, from what I remember seeing and playing, there was not even an option to let shields take additional damage aside from passive AC. Now, they allow damage to be absorbed by the shield that may not necessarily even break the damage threshold of the shield, but that could still be useful to a character. Players do not even have to use the shield block reaction, keeping the shield solely for the AC. Playing a sword and board fighter with shield block more than makes up for the difference in health die between the fighter and barbarian, and for squishier types without shields, the disparity in health reduction is just greater. Complaining that shields break when putting them in direct opposition to a blow just seems like a weird complaint with everything shields can do in this edition, especially when I have seen shield users use them to great effect with attacks that would have taken them down.
Cody of Taking20 has posted a response video to the response videos, Illusion of Choice - Breaking it Down. He points out that his players are experienced with many roleplaying systems and do use roleplaying and creativity, to debunk the hypothesis that his players fell into a repetitive routine due to inexperience. At time mark 14:00 he number crunched a hypothetical PF2 ranger archer versus a hypothetical D&D 5e ranger archer to show that the PF2 archer lost 60% of his damage when not using archery while the D&D 5e archer lost 20% of his damage when not using archery to demonstrate that PF2 has more lock-in to its design.
And that is his elaboration on illusion of choice, that if a character invests in one combat style, such as archery, then the character has better results with that style and temporarily switching to another style falls woefully short of the new and higher baseline in either damage or chance of success. At time mark 7:17 he states that his players are not min-maxers because the choices they made are standard to PF2. He gave the example that if a player wanted to create a ranger archer then Dex 18 and Hunted Shot ranger feat 1 are natural choices, not min-maxed choices. His hypothetical ranger went for Quick Draw as his or her 2nd-level ranger feat, in case the ranger needed to draw a melee weapon, so the ranger was not totally archery focused.
Contrast Cody's ranger to the ranger Zinfandel in my game. Zinfandel took Flurry Edge rather than Precision Edge, because he planned on multiple attacks in both melee combat and ranged combat. With Dex 18, Zinfandal was hoping to be an archer; nevertheless, characters proficiency in all martial weapons were rare in the party (for a while, Zinfandel was the only one), so he expected to be called to melee combat, too. Thus, his 1st-level ranger feat was Twin Takedown. He took the 2nd-level ranger feat that favored archery, Hunter's Aim. Hunter's Aim is not compatible with Hunted Shot, which...
I'm curious. Does the ranger really lose 60% damage when not using ranged attacks? Can someone else do the math?
I was looking at the archetypes, and archer is wrong. Rogues can sneak attack with any ranged weapon, longbow and crossbow included.
As for dual-wield warrior, I would not make the dedication blue. Double slice is good, but it is not a must have, especially because you can only count precision on one attack.
I do not think the Aldori Duelist or Red Mantis Assassins are as good as you've put them. They both require two general feats (both for weapon proficiency) to gain access to, which makes non-human unable to get until level 8.
As for the scout, scout's pounce also requires the character to be hidden or undetected from all enemies. While that is probably the usual hope for a rogue, it can only be used on the first turn until level 15, when rogues can get legendary sneak.
I guess I am a little odd in my preference for adventure rewards. I prefer when the great majority of wealth comes from social interactions, experience from combat, and hero points from both.
I probably should clear this up. By combat, I mean overcoming encounters by any method: whether that is combat, stealth, or talking through it with social or other rolls.
By social interactions, I meant bargaining, talking to the vendors and important NPCs, and trading.
For example, PCs get a job to clear out some wolves. Fighting the wolves, scaring them off, or capturing and releasing them far away would all be ways of gaining experience. Talking to the quest giver and receiving gold would be gaining wealth as well as selling wolf skins or teeth (if combat was the route). And hero points would be rewarded for roleplaying the characters: the slimey character trying to get more gold for clearing out the wolves, the tactician instructing everyone on how to get rid of the wolves, the hurt character complaining (or pretending to suck it up) about the pain, or someone trying something fun and interesting.
I am confused about the assertions that all the encounters are combat. Sure, each encounter has stat blocks for the creatures in them; however, I think that is just a measure put into place by the AP writers to prevent complaints about them not being in place when players decide to attack. In my experience, mirroring what Michael Sayre wrote, each encounter has multiple avenues to solve them, and experience should be rewarded for those non-combat solutions as well. As far as I know, the APs do not say that the players must fight the creatures in the encounters; that just might be the simplest, most straight-forward solution. In Age of Ashes, I recruited or attempted to recruit anything that was not a slaver, and it worked out pretty well, making a group stationed out of Fort Alterian composed of a dragon, elves, kobolds, goblins, wargs, orcs, dwarves, townsfolk, and a lava monster. Its a roleplaying game; if players or GMs do not try to play into roles, it is not the AP's or writer's fault. And giving every single possible iteration for the game is nigh impossible and would hamper creativity, making the APs more linear and videogame like.
I guess I am a little odd in my preference for adventure rewards. I prefer when the great majority of wealth comes from social interactions, experience from combat, and hero points from both. Of course, I do like when there is a reasonable explanation for wealth in combat, such as an enemy using a shiny new sword or raiding a dragon's lair. Right now, I am probably in the worst reward system, in which wealth and hero points are rewarded for combat (really, why would a ghost have a set of chainmail inside it?) and leveling is milestone; we had been fighting severe and extreme single creature encounters (really not that fun or epic when every fight is a leveled down 13-15 creature) for three sessions, leaving dungeons to get equipment (the DM took away all of our equipment at the start). We then entered another dungeon and cleared it, resulting in us leveling up. When we went back and cleared the other, we leveled up again. All of this just kind of ruined the immersion of the game.
As for the structure of the APs, I agree they can result in disconnect between expectation and what is available. For example, when playing Age of Ashes, I expected Citadel Alterian to be a central hub of great importance to the game; however, it just became the travel station. I see no reason why we were told to spend gold fixing it up since it wasn't central after the first book. In a similar manner, Extinction Curse proves disappointing (partially from my group), as I went fully into the carny spectacle, while the other players do not contribute to the circus' performance whatsoever (in fact only one other player has performance). It kind of bummed me out how the circus mechanic has been introduced, but it really hasn't done anything for the story. I do not mind the different encounters; I just wish they were better integrated into the big selling point of the AP.
I do not think dual thrower is as good as people are making it out to be. Dual thrower suffers from the same (and probably worse) problem as dual wielders: drawing weapons/bombs, and it does not interact with quick bomber, which is better than dual thrower. To make dual thrower work, you need to spend a round getting bombs out before throwing them in the next, which is not worth it.
I think devise a strategem is probably the greatest assurance for making bombs hit.
I've noticed some GMs and some (past) discussion on forums that some people are requiring two actions to draw two one-handed weapons. If that's what the rule intends, then i have the following request.
Request: Clarify/Change the Interact rules so that a creature can draw one weapon with each hand.
Alternatively: Allow any PC with Twin Feint, Double Slice, Flurry of Blows, Twin Takedown, or any other feat that requires using two separate weapons, the ability to draw both weapons with one Interact.
Alternative 2: Allow two weapon draws as long as one of them is Agile.
Reasons/Rationale
1. Verisimilitude - As the rules clearly allow you to grab one item with both hands, it stands to reason that a person should be able to grab two separate items, one with each hand. It doesn't make sense to require two Interacts to put your hands in your pockets, to grab both oars in a rowboat, to pick up two mugs of ale with each hand, and to do any number of things that people routinely do with two hands involving different object. I don't need two Interacts to pull the french doors open on my refrigerator.
2. Balance - If the rules actually do require two Interacts, this poses a substantive disadvantage to class/builds that are expected to dual wield. If a class (build option) which is designed to use two-handed weapons can grab a greatsword with two hands, then duel wielding build options put the character at an action economy disadvantage.
This is even more impactful for Flurry Rangers who are already paying a Hunt Prey action-tax. Requiring a Flurry Ranger to Hunt Prey and then spend two Interacts, and then move, pretty much guarantees they won't get Twin Takedown in round 1 in many situations.
3. Fairness - In PF1, if you took Two-Weapon Fighting, it also allowed you to double draw. There is no such feat in PF2 (which is why I've interpreted Interact to allow a double draw). Nor is there any class feat which specifically allows this. If I'm wrong about Interact already...
I've brought this exact problem up since Pathfinder 2e released. Most recently was when the APG released. I thought at least dual wield warrior would have a feat that allows drawing two weapons at once.
Like this thread, the most common argument against it was that there is quick draw; my response was that quick draw still requires two actions to draw a weapon, meaning most dual wield actions are not used that round, and being in melee opens up the character to attacks of opportunity. It sounds like a lose-lose situation.
As such, I always make sure to tell my GM that I have my weapons out whenever I think danger is near. It sucks, but that is the only solution I have come up with.
I would be sad to see the Magus' spell strike be limited. Despite me using it not being amazing action economy, I almost always use the ability in my game unless we are fighting at range. At range, because my runes are on my blade, I use Magus Potency. That focus spell alone carries my Magus as a switch hitter because keeping two weapons runed greatly cuts into the wealth by level. I am having quite a bit of fun with the Magus and hope the changes are not true drastic, as I have made an action manipulator, who despite not being the most powerful in the group, is very versatile and is very effective at targeting weaknesses.
A single attack roll for both the melee and spell would be detrimental to my magus-rogue, though it does not fully come online until level 8. While that might not be good enough for many, in the campaigns I play in, which go to level 20, level 8 is only two-fifth of the entire game. Also, while an eldritch archer-esque character (not my character) benefits from one attack roll, I agree with the sentiment that Int would become a dump stat; yes, the magus would still need Int for non-spell strike spells, but I think most people would still dump it, as normally casted spells would be put on the backburner for the spell strikes, utility, and buffs. That seems bloaty to me and a powergamey issue that Paizo has reported trying to get away from in this edition.
Feats:
1: Nimble Elf (A), Cat Fall (B)
2: Rogue Dedication (C), Arcane Sense (S)
3: Fleet (G)
4: Sneak Attacker (C), Quiet Allies (S)
5: Ancestral Suspicion (A)
6: Basic Trickery: Tumble Behind (C)
7: Improved Initiative (G)
8: Advanced Trickery: Magical Trickster (C), Swift Sneak (S)
Spells:
C: Ray of Frost, Telekinetic Projectile, Acid Splash, Produce Flame, Chill Touch
1: Shocking Grasp, Ray of Enfeeblement
2: Acid Arrow, Invisibility
3: Haste, Vampiric Touch
4: Phantasmal Killer, Dimension Door
*After level 5, half spell slots were dedicated to invisibility/haste with Phantasmal Killer being a slot spell at level 7 as well as heightened invisibility.
This build works much better with the free archetype, but I like how it plays out. Early levels, damage is sacrificed until sneak attack becomes an option at 4, but it was not too bad.
(I ruled the -DoS applied to the secondary save as well on a crit). She crit 3 of them, causing them to instantly die because they failed (->crit fail) the initial save and failed the secondary save.
This is interesting question... Not sure if Dev Team would be in favor of how you ruled it (DoS upgrade to both Saves), but perhaps it may not be as simple as saying "it doesn't apply to both". Even if that is the case it won't increase BOTH DoS, what if the first Save was NATURALLY a CritFail/CritHit due to roll/Nat1/Nat20? Should the Spellstrike DoS effect then apply to the 2nd Save? When 2nd Save is contingent on 1st CritFailing (or on CritHit if spell attack) the relation is clear, but what about spells that have 2 parallel saves?
On 2 Weapon Fighter losing Runed weapon, yeah that is vulnerability that perhaps players need to account for. I think people are pushed to Doubling Rings and think that is sufficient replacement for 2nd Runed weapon, but maybe not. Reasonably characters can afford 2nd Runed weapon, which could be different damage type/traits when "main" one isn't optimal. Perhaps a Doubling Ring for "off hand" Agile weapon should be in addition to that 2nd Runed Weapon, not replacing it. Obviously at lower levels you wouldn't have all that, but also "stepping down" to non-Runed weapon is at least OK if you get disarmed etc.
What is DoS?
Also, for the runes, I have a very different experience. I did a dual wielding character who upgraded each weapon instead of using doubling rings in Age of Ashes. My character alone, mostly because of those two weapons, accounted for 70% of the party wealth, very disproportionate to the other four members of the party (though I always asked out of character if it was alright, and asked everyone to have their characters voice any disagreement with my character taking the lion's share of the loot just to keep his weapons up to par. My party was fine with it, but I always felt bad about the ridiculous cost to keep weapons level appropriate (weapons without any special materials whatsoever).
3) You can use an AoE spell as a single target spell using Spell Strike. And has the math been done for every situation? If not, my point stands that the Magus has versatility on its side.
Up to interpretation.
Magus wrote:
You drastically alter a spell to combine it with a martial attack.
If the next action you use is to Cast a Spell that can target one
creature or object, instead of casting it as normal, you place
its magic into one melee weapon you’re wielding or into your
body to use with an unarmed attack.
My personal read is that it requires the spell to have the text "1 creature" or "1 object" in the spell's "Target" entry.
Which means you could use for instance Electric Arc "1 or 2 creatures", but not Fireball which has no target entry at all.
I don't think it is ambiguous. I just misread it. This makes it far less flexible than I originally thought.
Point about 3: You can't use it with AoE spells. Striking Spell can only be used for single target spells. Even spells like Electric Arc which normally targets 2 enemies can only target the enemy you Strike. Further the math has been done top to bottom and at every level, with every manner of buff and debuff, you're doing more damage on average by just attacking twice with an agile weapon and you're saving an action to boot. It is a feature that you are *actively worse* for engaging with. You are adding a miss chance to spells that don't have them and the crit chance of bumping the save a step down does not offset that.
And on 4) Bespell Weapon is a trap feat. Remember, you only get *4* spells for the entirety of your career and almost none of your focus spells are battle worthy so unless you archetype out to pick up focus spells or spell slots (which means you're not even getting Bespell Weapon at level 4) then it's something that adds almost no damage to your overall adventuring day.
The Magus has some EXCELLENT ideas on paper but until they get them ironed out (something I have faith in the developers for) it is, fundamentally, a broken class. It's own main class feature, at every instance, under every circumstance, is a detriment and a punishment to use.
3) You can use an AoE spell as a single target spell using Spell Strike. And has the math been done for every situation? If not, my point stands that the Magus has versatility on its side.
4) Bespell Weapon is only a trap feat if you cannot find a way to use it in your build. I explained a situation in which Bespell Weapon can be useful (point 1), and I am sure there are others that I just am not intelligent enough to have seen already.
I do not see what the point of complaining is without even trying to find ways to make the class not only viable but also very useful in a party with all the tools it has at its disposal.
I am probably one of the few people who think that the Magus looks cool and worthwhile to play as it is; however, I do not have many presumptions about the class besides that it is supposed to be a gish, as I abhorred PF1e for many of the reasons that people complain about this magus and quite a few others. Still, looking at the Magus, I see it as perfectly viable, especially because it offers many things that I think fill the lacuna in the game that is not breached between wizard/fighters or fighter/wizards. So, here are a few things that I find interesting about Magus possible playstyles:
1) They can make great switch hitters. With Magus Potency, as a one action focus spell, a melee Magus can pull out a bow and use it for a full fight without worrying about accuracy or damage. You're even getting +2 two levels before everyone else does with normal runes; also, with runic impression, the damage only increases, making switch hitting very viable.
2) Slide casting fixes has nice interactions with action economy. At level 1, it is possible to cast a Spell Strike, Stride, and Attack. If in melee, the Magus can Step (to avoid AoO), Spell Strike, and Stride away to attack next turn, especially if the opponent is dangerous. Also, Slide has the greatest synergy with spell parry.
3) Spell Strike gives the Magus versatility: precision or versatility. I have read so many times that spellcasters are bad because they cannot cast their AoEs when martials run in (which I wholeheartedly disagree with). With Spell Strike, a magus has the option to just focus an AoE into his or her weapon and strike (usually with 4 or five chances). If the magus picks up Bespell Weapon at Level 4, the damage is increased. Also, though probably rare unless you are setting up for it, criting using fortitude save spells at higher levels is a good usage for this ability.
4) Talking of Bespell Weapon, it is pretty great for a Magus. Using Magus Potency with a side weapon and increasing damage for a turn with it works out well. Also, if the Magus casts at the end of a round, he or she can benefit from the Bespell weapon in the next round. The Magus has better attacks than wizards and better synergy than a fighter. Unfortunately, the Magus does not have many universally useful focus spells in the playtest that also do not require a class feat, but that can be helped with archetypes.
5) And archetyping is really where I think Magus shines (as does every other class, in my opinion). Now, since I have not talked about the Magus Syntheses, I think now to be the most appropriate.
5a.Shooting Star is amazing in it's synergy and ability to remain out of melee. It has been compared as inferior to the Eldritch Archer, but the Eldritch Archer is a prestige archetype only available at level six, while Shooting Star is available at level one and is useful at all levels. More so, since Shooting Star and Eldritch Shot do not do the same thing, they can be used together to create synergy. For example, if you can only target a weakness with a saving throw spell or want to single target an AoE debuff, Shooting Star would be useful, and then there are interactions with comet spell. Also, a nova attack could be set up if you know combat will begin by spending one round to buff (Runic Impression or Hasted Assault later) and prepare spell strike with the next round being an eldritch shot if you see your enemies. It is situational, but possible. Also, Shooting star allows you to crit fish (effective -7 is the lowest we have gotten a creature in my group).
5b. Sustaining Steal seems more of a tankier style, so I would take sentinel archetype to get heavy armor. Fighter, with all the fighting styles and especially Exacting Strike is possibly the best multiclass dedication for a two-handed melee.
5c. For all the syntheses, I think spell casting multiclass archetypes are excellent choices; top tier of course would be the wizard followed by an arcane witch and arcane sorcerer. Scrollmaster is also really useful for a Magus that picks up Striker's Scroll.
(I got interrupted with class earlier, so I forgot a lot of the points I wished to make).
If all you're interested in is the loot, then Mug isn't worth much to a PC, no.
But there are at least two times when it can be very valuable:
1) You're not a badass adventuring party but are in fact a solo rogue trying to make a living in the unforgiving city. Perhaps snatching a merchant's fat purse and beating feet before his bodyguard cuts you in half is a great idea.
2) Say you're facing a powerful opponent in combat and you notice he's got a sweet wand in a sheathe on his hip. Or a fine magical brooch that's been defeating your party mage's magic missiles. Now wouldn't this combat go better if you could snatch away that wand or that brooch?
while there are occasions that you can use it, like snatching spell component pouch from a caster or a holy symbol from a cleric and etc, i'd definately say that it's much more circumstantial than a blue rating implies.
I think yellow rating for a circumstantial and/or "rp" (solo thief surviving through theaft) ability is more appropriate.
I did not notice that in my read through, but I agree.
I do not agree with the reasoning behind Reveal Machinations, but I agree with the ratings, as it can only be used on humanoids, greatly limiting its use especially that late in the game.
Personally, I think it would be fitting for a mastermind character in an intrigue city-based campaign.
I'd agree with your rating suggestion if I agreed with your interpretation of the feat. I think the wording "and neither you nor any enemies have acted yet in this encounter" is very clear. You must act before any enemy to use this feat.
I agree that my interpretation was wrong.
Core Rulebook pg. 632 wrote:
free action An action you use without spending one of your actions. Free actions with triggers can be used at any time, but they don't use up your reaction per round.
Since Tactical Entry does not have a trigger, it does seem to require the rogue to be the absolute fastest in initiative.
Tarondor wrote:
Narxiso wrote:
However, I was only talking about the 6th level feat Analyze Weakness, which only requires that the creature has been identified by the rogue with a recall knowledge action. Analyze Weakness would not give flat-footed whatsoever; however, it still makes for a great third action (after spending one to recall).
Totally agreed. I don't -think- I said otherwise. Let me know how you think my language could have been clearer.
You only ever have to identify it once, but the you have to spend an action on Analyze Weakness each round, because it's only for "The next time you deal sneak attack damage to the chosen creature with a Strike before the end of your turn".
Then I think there was a typo with Analyze Weakness in the guide:
Tarondor's Guide to Rogues (6th Level Rogue Feats 10.2.4) wrote:
Deal additional damage when you sneak attack after successfully identifying a creature through Recall Knowledge. For the ratings above, I have assumed that you can continue to use Recall Knowledge each round.
I believe that you may have meant "Analyze Weakness" for the bolded Recall Knowledge.
Edit: Also with Analyze Weakness, my reading is that you only need to identify the creature once ever, so it is better than how I think you are reading it.
It can't be the case that something is always flat-footed after the Mastermind identifies it just once. Not only is that a superpower, but it's not overly logical.
"How is he getting the drop on you every time?"
"He looked at me once, twenty years ago for six seconds."
However, I would like to see some official answers one way or another.
Oh, no, I also believe it making the enemy flat-footed would be overpowered as well. The Mastermind ability specifically gives a time period of until the start of the next round on a success or one minute on a critical success (which seems really good). However, I was only talking about the 6th level feat Analyze Weakness, which only requires that the creature has been identified by the rogue with a recall knowledge action. Analyze Weakness would not give flat-footed whatsoever; however, it still makes for a great third action (after spending one to recall).
Tarondor wrote:
Narxiso wrote:
Edit 2: Why is Spring from Shadows rated higher than Tactical Entry? To start a battle, tactical entry would be really useful to already be next to an opponent you can use a flourish attack against. Of course, Tactical Entry is once per fight at most, but I think if chosen at level 12, it is better than Spring from Shadows.
Tactical Entry gets you a free Stride only if you move before all enemies -and- rolled Stealth for Initiative.
Spring from the Shadows does more or less the same thing, but doesn't care whether you're first or not and doesn't care what skill you used for Initiative.. I feel that makes it considerably more useful because the situations in which you can use it will be much more common.
I did not read Tactical Entry that way. It says:
APG pg. 136 wrote:
You rolled Stealth for initiative in this encounter, and neither you nor any enemies have acted yet in this encounter.
To me, that means anytime you use stealth for initiative but before anyone has acted, and since tactical entry is a free action, it can be used whenever a trigger is specified, meaning that no matter when the rogue's initiative is, it can take a stride.
As for Spring from the Shadows, I think it is more limiting as it requires the rogue to be hidden or undetected by the creature it strides up to (before using the feat).
Based on these readings, I think Tactical Entry should be Blue or at least Green, while I would have Spring from the Shadows as a Green, bordering yellow, as a rogue should be using stealth judiciously, and it pairs well with Sneak Savant.
Also, the fury barbarian does not get an instinct ability, so it does not increase damage. I think it would be rated red.
And with the Elven Thief Build, I think the 4th level Unbalancing Blow and the 5th Level Elven Weapon Elegance are filling the same roles, so one could be changed.
Aside: Some people have mentioned that they are color blind and cannot see the text. Would it be possible to add some other distinguishing marks for them to use the guide as well?
A very good guide so far. It looks like you did a lot of work. One thing I would point out is that concealed (the condition) does not make a creature flat-footed to you.
Edit: Also with Analyze Weakness, my reading is that you only need to identify the creature once ever, so it is better than how I think you are reading it.
Edit 2: Why is Spring from Shadows rated higher than Tactical Entry? To start a battle, tactical entry would be really useful to already be next to an opponent you can use a flourish attack against. Of course, Tactical Entry is once per fight at most, but I think if chosen at level 12, it is better than Spring from Shadows.
I admit that I'm not sure what exactly you were expecting the class to do. If you just want a nimble warrior who is good at taking down a single target, then perhaps check out the Duelist archetype.
Bringing up the whole three actions thing is somewhat irrelevant, since I'm of the firm opinion that placing the mark should never be done in combat to begin with. Also, there's no need for the target to have any significance. As long as you can briefly observe them, you can pick any random mook as your target. There's no limit or expiry on the ability.
I don't expect a rogue to map out the whole dungeon by themselves. But if there's a rogue in the party, I would expect them to sneak up to the next room, glance inside and then gesture for the party to proceed or halt if there are enemies ahead. All the assassin has to do is peek for 6 seconds more. Yes, if the whole dungeon is completely cordoned off by crackless doors that cannot be opened an inch without anyone noticing, then scouting is indeed of limited use, but that's not my personal experience.
As for groups, there's no reason why the abilities are less useful. When you're fighting a group of, say, four goblins, the fight is the hardest in the first two or three rounds. Once one goblin goes down, the fight becomes easier, as the enemy damage goes down by 25% and there are fewer opportunities for flanking or one running off to harass your casters. Once two goblins are down, assuming your own guys are still standing, the fight becomes trivial and you're just mopping up the leftovers.
So if our hypothetical assassin got a pick at the four goblins, she can just pick one at random and focus on taking that one down as quick and hard as possible. Sure, you're not going to renew it after that, but it already did its job at that point. Assassinate just helps in this regard by making the takedown faster.
Is the assassin the best possible archetype? No, it isn't, but I honestly do not believe that it is useless or terrible. Taking the dedication at level...
I can understand your point, but it does not make the assassin seem any better for me at all. I think it has far too much in the moment setup and too little flexibility. My idea of an assassin comes from other media: movies, video games, and novels that are not strictly tabletop based. I also compare it to other available options. My definition of assassin is someone who is stealthy, knowledgeable, skilled, and lethal, being the most efficient person at killing someone and getting the job done while dealing with different unexpected variables. For stealthy and skilled, I think the dedication feat prerequisites covers that, despite my disagreement with the necessity of having poison crafting. Assassinate, if it didn't have the mark of death requirement and necessitating being unnoticed, would also be a good feat. Almost all of the others are not particularly worth it for a rogue.
Also, for a rogue, I think levels 2 and 4 are not the highlight for feats; however, I think the rogue has far better assassin-quality skills than the assassin available for those levels: underhanded assault, mobility, battle assessment, and predictable. At 6, the rogue can get Analyze Weakness. At 8, there is tactical entry. At 10, the thief has precise debilitations and sneak savant, spring from the shadows at 12, instant opening at 14, and hidden paragon at 20. I think all of these are better assassin feats than what are offered by the assassin. That is not to mention what is available for the rogue with other archetypes, such as the poisoner's Poisoner's Twist, the ranger's Monster Hunter or Hunter's Aim, or almost anything from the shadowdancer.
In the assassin, I was looking for something closer to Dragon Age, Kylar Stern, or at least Darius Kincaid. I don't see how those aren't done far better through other means. I still think the assassin is worthless, at least in an adventuring party. I don't see much point in continuing this conversation, however.
For a rogue, I just don't see the value in most of these. Yes, I agree that rogues can get marks fairly easily, but from a practical perspective while in a group, the uses for assassin are very negligible for the entirety of the game. Most targets for Mark of Death will either be bosses or critical NPCs, maybe 5% of all combats. A vast majority of combats are also against multiple foes, so using Mark of Death would be a waste of time and actions because using those actions to eliminate enemies with targets is far faster.
For three actions, Mark of Death with its benefits is definitely not solid. 1 point of damage and deadly can be gained through weapons, and while the bonus to feinting is nice, it is not so great as to warrant choosing the assassin dedication over Mobility or another first level rogue feat, which are almost all very useful.
The triggers are what make this a far worse feat for me. I was displeased with the dedication before realizing sight and hearing are necessary. Mark for Death is not worth it while exchanging blows, which we agree on. However, while six seconds is not a lot of time, in the game, it is. Also, 60ft with little or no sound may be fine, but 60ft in a crowded market or between rooms is still quite the distance. And it is very GM dependent. Mark of Death just seems like a worse Hunt Prey.
Getting within range of a target shouldn't be difficult for a rogue; however, PF2e is a group game. I prefer having everyone in the group involved in whatever we are doing, so having a solo mission is not really appealing for me or most players who are stuck waiting for the one-man show, I would imagine. Again, doing so much setup for one target out of many is not really practical for most games, at least as far as I've gotten into the APs and in homebrew games.
I could definitely see the rogue scouting ahead while the party does other things, but in most dungeons I have seen, creatures are cordoned off by doors. And the rogue going through the entire dungeon is not really that exciting for the rest of the party who want to explore it together. If the group does go together with the rogue opening the doors, they would all need to be stealthy. In one group, that is a fair tactic, but in most, my groups' characters are doing different exploration activities.
Out of the entire dedication, there is only one almost useful feat. Assassinate is not that great. It requires Mark of Death and to be unnoticed, which means a disguise ploy will never work. I've already mentioned the negligible damage (with a basic save) and effect (which is only useful against equal and lower level creatures). This is not to mention that this feat comes online at level 12, when rogue feats receive the biggest upgrade; also, rogues have a far easier assassination ability at level 19, which has better triggers, action economy, and debuffs. Yes, level 19 is far higher than level 12, but I am willing to bet that Master Strike sees more use than assassinate in most campaigns.
None of the feats in the Assassin archetype really help to facilitate being an assassin. Everything the assassin can do can be better done with other archetypes: ranger, shadowdancer, poisoner, or even bounty hunter. In a solo game, I could see the assassin archetype being very useful or even in a video game (I would love if Larian Studios did a Pathfinder 2e game). However, it is extremely underwhelming in a group game, especially when there are so many other archetypes or even feats that are more useful in every situation.
I am beyond irritated because I was hoping like everything else, Paizo would make the Assassin a fun class (I did not like any other iteration of it in other games), but it ended up being more of the same. I only bought the APG for three archetypes, and thankfully, the shadowdancer is good, but I was mildly disappointed with Dual Weapon Warrior.
What do you all think about the new class feats archetypes from the APG? Are any of them particularly exciting for the rogue? I find the duelist archetype to be interesting in particular.
The general problem with adding an archetype to a rogue is that rogues have a lot of good feat options already, so taking an archetype feat is probably costing you something you really wanted to take.
Scout and Assassin both stood out to me as potentially useful for a scoundrel rogue, but primarily because you can get value with low investment.
Assassin you're literally only taking the dedication for Mark for Death, though how useful that will be will be game dependent.
Scout dedication is basically a freebie as Scout's Warning is already a rogue feat, getting it with bonuses is nice (if you were considering it already), and then Scout's Charge offers some valuable action economy. (And it also has some other feats that give action economy for being sneaky, like Hide Sneak Sneak for 2 actions when you want to just disappear)
I think assassin is all around a terrible archetype for players. There are far too many prerequisites for very little gain in the archetype, and the requirements for Mark of Death, seeing and hearing the target and using three actions, really limits the usability in all but the most intrigue-heavy games. In most cases, Mark of Death will require taking a round of combat to use, which is far better spent doing something useful. Even with the other feats, all almost necessitating a marked prey, only give bonuses that are fairly minor for extremely high opportunity cost in comparison to straight rogue. For instance, Assassinate increases damage by 6d6 damage (2d8 (elven curveblade)+2d6 (sneak attack)+2d6 (rune damage)+4 +6d6 (assassinate)+2 (backstabber) maximum non-crit damage at level 12)and instantly kills an enemy on a failed fortitude save at the cost of five total actions (a round and two-thirds) and needing to be completely unnoticed. In comparison a non-thief rogue with 10 strength who over those five turns could deal 8d4 (dagger) + 8d6 (sneak attack) + 8d6 (rune damage) with only two attacks each round, a little over 1/3 average damage to a high HP of a level 12 creature. With assassinate requiring a fortitude save, generally the highest for all creatures, the assassin is not really a worthwhile archetype.
Sorry for the rambling. I was really looking forward to the assassin archetype, and what I received is utter garbage. I cannot imagine most tables being suitable for the assassin whatsoever.
More and more I am finding that this thread is not truly intending to talk about play experience with the wizard but for those who are accustomed to and want the same play as the traditional wizard of games past to express their discontent with the class. Despite many of our experiences being overall positive (though I still feel that wizards get master proficiency far too late and is way more dependent on good stats than most other classes), it seems like those who for whatever reason do not like what the wizard is capable of doing and only focus on what it is not designed to do feel it is a bad class. I am not sure what else there is to say. Math and experience have shown the wizard to be on par with other classes, despite not being the best at every role; wizards have advantages of their own, and while they do not get the benefits of every thesis, neither does the thief benefit from the mastermind's knowledge or the giant barbarian get the benefits of the dragon. There are tradeoffs, and for the wizard, I think they are just as acceptable as those of other classes. Personally, I like the wizard chassis and feats. I think wizard players who dislike them have given up too easily without a full understanding of the class' capabilities; that is not to say that anyone who feels that the wizard is good has full mastery, but I think trying wizard once to level 5 and then calling it a lost cause is too short a time with too limited an experience. Though I have only experienced the universalist and evocation wizards, I found them useful and often powerful in their own right. Even though wizards have no special single action of their own (after force bolt or hand of the apprentice has been used), I found many different uses for my third actions and often took some time to think about my choices. Although not as dependent as rogues, I found myself using a plethora of skill feats, which most classes use as their third actions, bard withstanding. Just with that choice I was hesitant; I can only imagine the analysis paralysis if more spells were single action, generating an exponential growth in tactical choices, unless there would be(and from my terrible experiences with 1e, this is probably the case) a set of obviously superior choices. For the sake of maintaining balance, I am glad that is not the case... yet. I am very tempted to try out an earlier suggestion with an evoker casting 1 action magic missiles judiciously. I think that would really put the Wand of Manifold Missiles to good use.
Rogues. This is the first time outside of a video game that I feel rogues have actually been on par with other classes. As it has always been my favorite class despite always being inferior, I am glad for the changes, especially with feats specifically for skills. I also feel like I have to be really engaged into fights and every single class feat is important and/or is a difficult choice. Just at first level, I am torn between every feat; at second, with all the different archetypes, I feel like there is an exponential growth in decisions that determine everything that I pick and how those choices influence my play style.
However, it doesn't have a "this turn" clause on its requirement. RAW, you should be able to setup for Bespell Weapon by casting a spell as your last activity in the previous turn.
I don't think so. In the spell description, it says:
Quote:
You siphon spell energy into one weapon you’re wielding. Until
the end of your turn, the weapon deals an extra 1d6 damage
of a type depending on the school of the spell you just cast.
This leads me to believe that if an action is done as a final action in that turn, then the turn ends, meaning that bespell weapon's duration ends as well.
@Vlorax, I think B is the correct reading as well because Ki Strike includes the strikes as part of the spell.
...30' range. Being that close to enemies isn't something most Wizards I've played, or seen, relish being.
Where as being outside that range is something that I rarely see any character do because thus far my group has only played the published adventure and adventure path content, and most of the encounter areas the included maps present don't provide many opportunities to be further away and still have line of effect and line of sight.
Then we're playing different modules. I'm only playing Age of Ashes, we're about halfway through book 3, I believe, and there have been quite a few places (almost all of them) where I could be more than 30' away from an enemy and still cast on them. Heck, there have been several encounters where my Bard's 60' aura hasn't been able to reach every friendly combatant.
It gets claustrophobic in Age of Ashes as well. I saw that first hand as a wizard. It is why low saves is the really big problem for me with wizards. They are defensively weak at later levels without any good way to avoid spells or attacks. I was more often in spaces with too little distance than too much.
I'm definitely taking Nimble Dodge so that I can have a useful reaction.
I think I'm down to my last decision: should I take Tumble Behind or Twin Feint? I'm leaning toward Tumble Behind, but I'm open to more suggestions.
Nimble dodge is not really a good feat. OK, so you see you're attacked, you say you nimble dodge, attacker rolls a miss and your reaction is gone.
Both tumble behind and Twin feint offer some advantage: What is the view of your character? Actively trying to deceive the enemy physically (tumble) or mentally (feint)?
Nimble dodge is not really a great feat, but as the rogue doesn't have any reactions aside from catching a ledge, a 10% chance that a hit can be changed into a miss or a crit can be downgraded to a hit is better than nothing.
Honestly, dex to damage is pretty great early level. It still makes an impact later, but with all the dice from striking, sneak attack, and property runes, it is not as important later levels, despite being nice. I am not really inclined to play any other racket because of the damage boost as well as having the best feat at level 10.
If you just always want ways to get sneak attack, I would go sorcerer, as charisma has the best skills for making enemies flat-footed. At 1, I think twin feint is the most reliable, but that still only makes the enemy flat footed on the second attack. Tumble behind is great because, as you mentioned, it uses dexterity. Bear in mind though, it will only make the enemy flat-footed on the first attack. Twin feint is nice because you can feint first and make the enemy flat footed to all attacks that round; the cost is staying in melee though. For Tumble Behind, the major downside is still enemies with attack of opportunity, as the rogue is squishier than other martials.
Also, feint is nice because the only real investment is in skills, which rogues have a lot of. It can be useful for targeting a perception if the creature's reflex is particularly high. Another way to make an enemy flat-footed is intimidation at level 4, so I think you should invest in that as well. At later levels, you do not really have to worry about making the enemy flat-footed though, as there are so many options: precise debilitations, legendary stealth, and instant opening, not to mention getting flank whenever an ally is next to the enemy with a level 6 feat.
Honestly though, making creatures flat-footed is not difficult at all. In fact, it is the easiest to get, most common condition. I would honestly get Nimble Dodge to use your reaction or trapfinder if you're going to be dungeon diving.
