Orithilaen's page

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber. 42 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Multiple attack penalties mean that the rogue is very unlikely to roll all crits with four strikes in one round. An ancient gold dragon has an AC of 46 so even a pretty optimized rogue should have a decent chance of missing even with the first strike (20 for level + 6 for master proficiency + 7 for Dex bonus + 2 for flat-footed + 3 item bonus = +38).

The 2d10 persistent fire damage only applies at the end of the turn of the target being attacked and doesn't stack with itself (it's the same whether you critically hit once or four times). The 3d6 acid damage applies to the target's armor, not the target.

Ancient gold dragons, incidentally, are immune to fire.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
QuidEst wrote:
One thing that stood out to me- getting an innate spell with the incapacitation trait is really bad. The dhampir's charm ability only "works" on 1-2 level creatures and they get it at 5th. Anything relevant needs to crit-fail for any effect.

It's not a very useful combat ability, but it might have some out-of-combat use. I would probably let you cast it a few more times a day, which fits nicely with vampire tropes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
So like the article says, what Pathfinder character are you excited to build, and what stories do you want to tell?

Is it still good info that one of the sorcerer bloodlines is nymph? Because if so, I am very excited at the idea of building a nymph bloodline sorcerer--an idea I've toyed around with (usually as a fey or sylvan sorcerer in 1E) for years and years.

Perhaps something like the following: possessed of a strange supernatural beauty, which complicates his life among normal humans, he eventually leaves civilization for the wilderness as his magical powers develop, and becomes (like his fey ancestor) an enemy of those who harm forest creatures or despoil natural places.

In 1E I always envisioned him as focusing on illusion and enchantment, as the fey bloodline did (and does), but thinking about it, the core primal spell list works nicely too: lots of healing, light and fire evocations to destroy undead, maybe some transmutation spells, plus the thematic abilities that come with the bloodline.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The dhampir versatile heritage has a 17th level ancestry feat. I don't think we've seen one of those before--I wonder if there will be others (particularly for the core ancestries, where the high-level options can be a bit underwhelming at the moment).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Building the best casters has always required system mastery, but I think PF2's reduction to caster power means that building a good-enough caster requires more than it used to. And the game is still new so people are still working out what works best.

Sticking to the arcane list, a lot of the very good spells from PF1 are still very good (invisibility, fly, grease, black tentacles). Blink is arguably better but that's maybe controversial. Collective transposition is new and seems extremely useful. Would be interested to know people's experiences with duplicate foe. Summoning in general is a lot weaker but can be used for flanking bonuses and to use up your foe's actions. Teleport took what I think is a fun and flavorful "nerf." True strike, and the 7th level companion whose name escapes me, are now must-halves for their combo with spell attacks. Cantrips are useful for those cases when the martials can handle a threat without much help, which on the one hand makes a wizard less interesting in those fights, and on the other hand means you can save your other spells for when they matter most.

I'd say I'm less interested in another fight about 2e and more interested in how you can play a caster now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:

If you think that thr developers deliberately meant to let players to exploit the system by wearing bracers + another armor ( every class will do that way. Otherwise would be stupid, as you would waste golds for nothing ), I say it is your choice.

To me, their intent is clear.

Keep in mind, the item bonuses from the armor and from the bracers don't stack with each other. So it pretty often won't be the best choice (I think usually not unless it's a character who would normally be relying on bracers instead of armor). You will normally want the best potency rune you can afford on the best armor you have your best proficiency in, since the potency rune and the armor's base item bonus do stack.

Edit: In other words, the real advantage of this combo is that it lets you get armor property runes more cheaply, not that it boosts your AC or saves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

There are different types of feats: ancestry feats, general feats, class feats, and skill feats. By default, you don't get any general feats at first level. You do get one ancestry feat, and most classes also give you a class feat (check the class).

Versatile Heritage gives you one general feat at 1st level. This doesn't have any interaction with the half-elf heritage ability, which lets you choose *ancestry* feats (not general feats) from the elf, half-elf, and human lists. (Also, since by default you only have one heritage, I don't think you can have both the versatile heritage and the half-elf heritage, but it's possible there's a way to do this I don't know about.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of representing curses being the "price of power" by having them be your daily tracker of revelation spell use. It's altogether too linear and feels too deflationary. The "price of power" but you can modulate it according to your needs and it gets re-set each day--it seems to be doing something very different, and much less interesting, than what curses had the potential to do in PF1. Likewise with tying the curse to the mystery; to me it is a better story, and better reflects the mysterious nature of the oracle, if the two are not necessarily thematically related.

I think my personal preference would be for a short list of curses, each with an important but narrow mechanical drawback that is always on. The effects of the curse could grow worse as the oracle gains more revelation spells, or it could just be a sunk cost. In PF1 the sheer abundance of curses was a problem, I think (just checked AON and it looks like there are 40+), and with a tighter constraint on that it might be possible to solve some of the problems that happened with PF1's curse design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

This is something Pathfinder largely derived from its antecedents, but I generally don't like the way religion works in setting. A few examples:

1. The heal/harm division between good and evil gods never made much sense to me. Couldn't it make sense for a good cleric of a crusader god to be able to get special benefits using harm instead of heal? Or, conversely, for clerics of Asmodeus to prioritize healing, to entice people into deals with the devil and because lawful evil seems to mean that (sometimes) you're a team player?

PF2 both alleviates and exacerbates this. On the one hand, it's nice that alignment is no longer an ironclad rule (though so far Lamashtu is the only exception); on the other hand, now that clerics can do both with a class feat, it seems like many more gods (good and evil ones as well as neutral) should allow both.

2. More fundamentally, the pantheon and the way gods work is very confusing to me. The line between a very powerful being and a god, and between "I'll be nice to you/serve you because you'll give me nice things" and "I see you as a worthy object of worship," is a tricky one to draw in general. In Golarion, where some creatures who grant spells have stat blocks (or are mythic PCs!), and where flaws of gods appear to be relatively well-known, it seems especially blurry. You might expect in such a world that relationships with gods predominate toward the merely transactional ("I'll pray to Asmodeus so I can use divine magic") or coalitional ("Iomedae is an extremely powerful being and this is something she'd care about, so let's ask her for help"), but the model of religion I see in the source materials seems closer to religions in the real world with very different theologies.

This is a direct answer to the thread question about what I dislike about the Pathfinder universe, not necessarily a criticism--dealing with 2. in a way that I personally find satisfying might also risk stepping into any number of minefields. (I kind of do think PF2 gives the design space to have a more satisfying resolution of 1., though--but it's early still so we'll see.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Is she using Debilitating Bombs and is she being tactical with her bomb choice? The bomber is a debuffer as much as a damage dealer. Can't compete directly with a martial at damage dealing (not without using up lots of resources quickly, anyway) but can impose flat-footed, movement constraints, etc. Debilitating Bombs works well to enable the otherwise weak Perpetual Infusions bombs to be more effective.

All alchemists can also use elixirs as a secondary support role--make them with advanced alchemy and hand them out to party members at the beginning of the day.

As far as missing: is she missing more than the other players? If her Dex is too low, I would let her rebalance, but it doesn't sound like that's the issue. Against very hard to hit enemies, maybe use quicksilver mutagen?

Would be helpful to know a little more about how her character is built.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
cavernshark wrote:
It would be really cool if witches were Occult base, but got a feature called "Patron Spells" that worked a little bit like the signature spell class ability for sorcerers and bards. They could, at each spell level, pick a single spell off of an alternate list chosen at first level (primal, divine, arcane) that represents the unique magic of their patron. This way you could retain all the flexibility of an amorphous patron and future proof against the addition of future spells. This way your winter witch won't miss out if new ice spells get added, you just retrain your patron spells. It'd also open up some design space for feats entirely based around those additional spells known (e.g. commune with your familiar for 10 minutes once a day to convert a prepared spell into one of your patron spells).

I really like this idea. You could customize the lists further, too: "you can pick patron spells from the arcane list or from any spell with the healing trait" or something like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Witches had probably one of the most flexible spell lists in PF1, to me it only makes sense that they're the pick a list caster, because they already sort of did that in PF1 to a lesser extent.

I think PF1 was different because while their spell list was a mix of the core class lists, they also had lots of holes in their base list. They got lots of good enchantments from the wizard list but not the flashy evocations or transmutations. They got healing magic from the cleric list but on a delayed progression and without the best status removers (and also without divine staples like alignment-based attack spells). They had a decent buff/debuff repertoire like the bard but were missing some of the best buffs (like haste). You could pick a patron that plugged these holes but they usually plugged no more than one and often did so incompletely. The choice of class mostly dictated your spell list, with a little customization on top.

It could work to have witches as the "patron magic" class, just as sorcerers are the "blood magic" class, and make patron/hexes/familiar the defining class features independent of spell list. But I think it would feel and play pretty differently from the PF1 witch--just like a PF2 demonic sorcerer compared to a PF1 abyssal sorcerer.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Some thoughts.

The underlying issue here is that PF2 spellcasting is built around four and only four traditions, each of which are thematically tied to specific elements from Pathfinder's source material: arcane is wizard's magic, divine is cleric's magic, primal is magic with a nature/elements feel, and occult seems heavily reminiscent of the PF1 psychic spell list.

This already produces some thematic awkwardness for the game. The bard is the core occult caster but gets lots of spells (magic missile, mage armor, the telekinetic spells) that don't seem that bard-y. The fey sorcerer gets a spell list that natively lets her cast fireballs but requires supplementation to get the enchantment and illusion spells most suited for fey.

To be clear, I think that's fine. The traditions approach has lots of advantages. Aside from the many gameplay-centered ones, one lore-related advantage is that it seems to be a way to develop a deeper in-game explanation of how different kinds of magic relate to each other and the world. It's inevitable that developing this kind of systematic approach will disrupt some assumptions from previous editions of the game and all the more so from the broader fantasy and myth traditions that Pathfinder draws on.

The problem for the witch is that "witch" has pretty thick (if rather varied) meaning out-of-game and it also has lots of association in-game from its Pathfinder and D&D history, and both of those correspond to a "magical tradition" that doesn't match up with any of the four traditions. There are some witchy spells and some non-witchy spells on all four spell lists. (Many people say occult is the best fit, and I think I see why, but spells like hypercognition, zealous conviction, and telekinetic maneuver/haul seem awkward fits there too.) So given the constraint of the magical traditions, the pressure seems to be to (1) break up the witch into different "subclasses" tied to different traditions, which runs the risk of making the overarching concept too broad or (2) make a particular witch's spell list very customizable, which runs the risk of undermining why the game switched to magical traditions in the first place. (One concrete issue with (2) is that older witch options may become less supported over time, since I expect that new spells will be added just to the tradition lists and not to previous packages of patron theme spells.)

I don't have any elegant solution. I guess I think the best approach might be to narrow focus. What is Baba Yaga's magical tradition? What is Feiya's? There's always archetypes to expand and tailor a particular spellcaster's theme, without disrupting the structure of the base class as much; not just multiclass, but also archetypes like the halcyon speaker that seem to be based on the multiclass spellcaster rules.