OrochiFuror's page

I hope you get to play often and have that connection flourish.

I have a friend who lost both parents in his 30's. It's been several years and I've done my best to be a good supportive friend since he has no other family around, none worth mentioning. I buried his dog for him earlier this year. He's very distant and makes it hard to connect and help though.
Hopefully everyone has people they can lean on in times of need, and aren't afraid to do so.

If your going to limit the FA to do with whatever role they have in government, then it will be unlikely to have much effect. You basically have to curate the list of options and thus prevent broken combos.

Taking all multi class options off the table did wonders for a few APs I've played through. That's where a lot of the power imbalance comes from.

Skill monkeys already have too much and regular characters are starved for skills past 7. Three skills maxed doesn't make for a well balanced character at all, specially when you have to choose between filling a weakness in the group and actually supporting your characters theme and personality.

This rule however massively favors skills that have more feats as well as those with feats that are more generally useful like aforementioned medicine and intimidate. While nature and survival would just give you some niche rarely usable options.

It's a step in the right direction, and it's infinitely more useful to have good printed variants then hope a GM has their own homebrew that you like.

So pretty much the animal companion is treated like a constuct.

They are a rules mechanic, and thus are made to be balanced for action economy and investment cost. This basically means they are an NPC that does what the GM wants until you use your abilities to get it to do things you want it to do. This means a LOT is up to GM preference.

Then again, sometimes it isn't always obvious which PC is 'the wizard'. Even before the war mage class archetype, the sentinel archetype (and using a general feat on Weapon Proficiency, such as with a human with the Versatile heritage or taking General Training as their 1st level ancestry feat) allowed 'the wizard' (or sorcerer, or psychic, etc.) to wear medium (or heavy with additional feat investment) armor and wield a martial weapon (like a dancer's spear) with very little investment...

If historically robed wizards got killed because of their ability to effect change, what intelligent wizard would still wear robes and not try to appear as something else. That's just survival.

The moment you drop a fireball or eclipse burst though, you invite trouble.

Can I get Double prey on my ranger for free while your at it?

How do you play with people who don't want to engage with you in a team based game? Well you don't. They don't want to play with a group then there isn't much you can do about it.

Being level 18 doesn't make much sense to scrap a character for a new one, why not save the commander for your next game? Then you can learn it as you go, and maybe have people who will be more willing to engage with the group.

I'll have a better idea in several months now that I'm playing my ranger/beastmaster. But from what I've seen from other players and running numbers versus previous groups effectiveness, I think the biggest problem is just needing a few companion items to fix common situations. We have wave rider barding to give swim speed, there needs to be a non-barding option for flight. Barding for many AC becomes useless as you can get 7-9 dex easily thus making dex based ACs vastly superior to STR based ones. Even savage companions get too much Dex for barding, that can't be intended.

So first off fix itemization for ACs to scale into late game better.

Second fix specializations and perhaps the Non-nimble advancements. The raw numbers don't add up.
A nimble companion can have 43AC, 206 HP, 33hit, 3d8+8 damage at 20.
A savage companion can have 36(!)AC, 228HP, 32hit, 3d8+14 damage at 20.

Not having magical barding that scales up or having a defensive proficiency buff really kills non-nimble companions.
Get them items for alternate movement methods as those become available to PCs and fix the numbers first and foremost.

Once companions are able to keep up with where PCs are bringing the fight and are balanced with each other so there isn't a clear right way to build them, then we can start having talks on how they are performimg. Because right now companions are just a mess that only holds together at low levels.

As someone who has never liked wizards, I hope when/if summoner gets reprinted that dragon Eidolons grant pick a list. Getting stuck with the all rounder list doesn't feel great when I only have 4 slots and want to do very specific things with them. I see a lot more primal spells that interest me then arcane.

As someone who's not fond of casters in PF2, arcane is sort of the poster of why magic is bad. Huge list that you only get 3 or 4 choices from per rank, many spells being anemic and resist or crit resist being the more common result of most castings. The size just sort of exacerbates the other problems. Having more unique spells that just do things would be far more enjoyable IMO.
I haven't played a caster in a year and a half, so maybe the lists have gotten better in that time, but the scuttlebutt suggests otherwise.

Having the largest tradition list is great for Schrodingers wizard, otherwise arcane hasn't really stood out much other then being THE legacy list. Now that the other lists have really been fleshed out, hopefully we get a bit of push for unique arcane only Arcane flavored spells.
All the powerful reality and magic warping spells got turned into rituals, so what does being an arcane spell at its core mean anymore?

Might be wishful thinking but if we get another shot at Secrets of magic, since it can't be remastered and needs to be redone almost entirely, would be nice to get another deluge of spells and hope to balance out the number of uniques a bit. Just to really hone in on the flavors of each tradition.

Haven't played an animist but one of the core problems I see is that the benefits of Embodiment of battle are easily overshadowed by the fact your a divine caster and should be giving similar hit bonuses to your group. It's sustain so your slowed 1 and step to sustain is mostly useless if your already flanking in melee. Third it tanks your spell dc's by 2 points and that's rough, A lot to give up for so little.

As an aside I don't see where your getting a second reaction for RS. Also circle of spirits doesn't sustain in and of itself, and while I understand it's role in your setup, it's a level one feat anyone can take and a 9+ medium can achieve the same for less actions.

So if you think that's a really good ability then it might heavily depend on your group. If you don't have much front line you can act as a decent martial, but in a group with two heavy hitters you should be buffing their to hit so they can Slam down and wreck enemies.

If you think liturgist is too much, maybe make it so you can only sustain spells from your current primary apparition.

I'm going to be blasphemous and say new things that have nothing to do with PF1.

Lets get more gish options that blur the weapon and casting proficiency lines. More martials with focus abilities. Take some inspiration from more modern fantasy. Something mixing FF red mage chainspell, magus double spell strike and Battlezoo dragon mage Spell echo. A martial class that can self buff with economy boosters to make that viable, so many books I read have gish characters that it's hard to not think this is becoming more the norm. A spell casting front line class, not good with weapons but able to mix armor and magic to control the battlefield, do magic damage and take hits. Perhaps a curse eater type theme with a class that triples down on things like Brutal bully and Flamboyant cruelty, able to inflict debuffs and consume them for greater effects and a big damage boost.

There's still room for lots of new ideas, so I hope they don't slow down and get more experimental. We just have to hope for fixes and expansions on all the parts that have already released.

When people mention Barb not having an AC penalty to rage anymore, they don't also mention Barbs have low level access to speed and heavy armor. So a +2 AC swing and faster then other heavy armor users, no archetypes needed.

Some classes feasted heavily. Its strange to look at cleric, barb or rogue with all they got and then look at ranger still hanging onto mediocrity.

A socially awkward person who's shut out in polite company but is a happy go lucky, can't shut up introvert when hanging out with their returned or spirit friends. Emo/punk/goth with a heart of gold.

Abby Sciuto. Can Abby be the iconic necromancer?

Is it ok that monster encounters built for your level are a threat while a trap built for your level isn't? I think that's the primary concern. It doesn't matter that they can be used better, it's that they have to be used better to have impact.

Saying you don't have a problem because your group uses them better and knows how to solve them beforehand doesn't really matter. Traps out of the box work in most other systems, so why don't they have something that just works here?

The trap needs to accomplish something. Someone, not the GM, put it there for it to do something. If it doesn't actually prevent people from going further then there's no point for people in world to use them.
That means most traps need to kill, contain or otherwise dissuade people from passing.

There's plenty of ways a solo monster can be a threat on it's own. Are people fine with the same not being true for traps?

For a bit of a side issue mentioned here. There is almost always some form of time crunch, unless you just ignore it.
First you character ages, why are you heading back to town when you stub your toe or wait around for 6-8 hours healing unless you think it's life or death. I do my best not to play my characters like they are Michael from Click.
Second how often are you just a short walk from the comforts of a well stocked town that can fix all your problems? As adventurers your likely off a ways into less charted places and if you spend days going back and forth to a place then someone else could take advantage of that.

You might choose to not play the game in a living breathing world, but I find that much less interesting.

Ed Reppert wrote:

One of the problems with the class-based system design is that you end up having to shoehorn all the myriad concepts of which players can conceive into whatever classes you have available. Too often there's no good fit.

I personally feel it's often the opposite: for any given concept, there's usually multiple ways of achieving it within the system. It's just that despite this, there's still this all-consuming desire to have a ready-made, prepackaged class that is explicitly called the thing you want it to be called, and nothing less will do for some players. You could have a stealthy, agile character who's lethal with a shuriken, packs a bunch of smoke bombs, and even uses a bit of magic to turn invisible and teleport around, but because that character wasn't built using a bespoke class called the Ninja, they're not a real ninja. It's the flipside to class-based design where it creates a desire for ready-made classes to satisfy very specific character concepts, even when those characters can already be built using existing options.

Agree. I realized at level two that my thaum build was a ninja. Good at sneaking, diplomacy, single handed hidden blade, could do mild magics from scrolls, able to climb with acrobatics, versatile skill selection, action efficient for movement and parry when needed.(FA with Acrobat and Spirit Warrior.)

A classless system suffers heavily from having to make sure no combo is too good, without tons of guide rails like PF2s multi class it ends up meaning everything has to be very subpar.
Some people have character building or conceptualizing methods that just don't mesh well with a class based system.
There's certain archetypes, like acrobat, spirit warrior, wrestler or beast master, that really open up a lot of options to your character build. They broaden what your character concept can be beyond your class in significant ways, I hope we continue to get more such archetypes.

Best to unlearn all of PF1 before you try digging into PF2, else you are likely to do many things wrong.
Fighter starts with more accuracy then anyone else in all weapons and through Weapon Mastery they continue to have the best advancement in accuracy with their chosen weapon type.

Your level is what boosts your chance to hit as you go. There's no flat way to improve basic hit chance. You can build for reducing MAP so your more accurate with multiple attacks, double slice to get two attacks at your full bonus and such that will make you more effective.

Every class scales up their basic capabilities at a set rate. The only thing you can do is choose feats to make specific actions in specific situations work better for you.

Sounds more like it's about terrain and major landmarks or armies. Nothing else. No single building or complex unless it's a major site above ground. Doesn't tell you what direction an army is headed so in a few hours you might be critically outdated on info. It's nifty but you'll have to be on top of things to make good use out of it in most situations.

If it's a choice, then tell them no phones and do something else related to the game. Shake some dice, watch and politely be involved in others turns, plan every part of your turn out and have the dice and such ready to go, or miss your turn. It's very disrespectful to waste other peoples time and your not much of a friend if your choosing to do it.

If it's due to neurological issues then take them out of combat. Split the party and let one group do combat and the other can be doing skill checks that can effect combat. This will require a LOT of work on your part but you can design your encounters to have gimmicks that require people be off to the side doing something else like hitting a switch or solving a puzzle/ picking a lock etc. Make the out of combat characters have few options so they don't need to think too much about things during their turn or set it up so they are working on the puzzle aspect while it's not their turn. Make your combats rare and more like a set piece and dramatic with very intentional layouts.

I hope they will go with what works for them. If they have two class ideas that developers are interested in doing, great. If they only have one passion class and another would be to fill the quota, then hold off on the second class and fill more archetypes, class feats and options for older classes that fit.

I understand that rehashing and fixing older content doesn't bring in the money, but when I get an option that makes a new build or fleshed out a character concept to work it makes me glad I purchased that new book.

Xenocrat wrote:

Taunt doesn’t have the emotion or mental trait, so it’s not really a taunt at all. You’re not making the mindless zombie mad at you.

I just wish we had called it something else like "mark" instead. As in "you have decided to pay specific attention to that enemy." I hate, hate, hate the idea of "you can draw enemy aggro with an ability that controls them" in a game like this.

Distract or distracting presence. Taunt is terrible because it is a videogame term, there's too much baggage there.

Can't wait to get a hold of it, the play test looked terrible but sounds like they went and buffed up every angle possible to make it into something worth using.
What's the difference in static damage reduction compared to what intercept does?

It's basically only viable for monks in a group that does heavy buffs and debuffs. Grabbed and frightened 2/3 or clumsy 2/3 gets you a +4 or +5. Even with +5 your -8 attack on a boss is risky. So you'll need a bard or get something like heroism to make God breaker work. At that point anything will work, but you'll still likely be the coolest one with those mods.

I don't think I could play another druid, most of the things I used have been taken away.
With FA, I had +2 status AC from dragon disciple for my battle forms. +2 to hit in all my battle forms from strength. Got to master attacks from sixth pillar.
I still didn't measure up to the fighter and rogue just tearing through bosses in my group, but I did very well.
Chain lightning or eclipse burst round one, reaction dragon form or kaiju form, chase things down, trip or FoB as needed.

Most of that is gone now.

To the topic at hand, saying feats aren't part of your class identity seems very short sighted to me.
Even with medium armor it gives you room to not focus on dex, several classes have this option, it's not good on any of them so why would you expect different here? The only actual late game advantage would be getting heavy armor and bulwark, so you would be free to grab cha or int.
Free shield block is just that, free, more room for other general feats.
Your order can lead you into dragon form, monstrosity form or kaiju form with improved form control, also can get wind caller and invoke disaster, coupled with effortless concentration you get flight and free lightning strikes that can feed right into taking a form.

Would be nice for the other orders to be nearly as good.
So in a way, yes the druids greatest advantage is it gets free feats. Really good feats. The thing that most casters are very bad at.

PF2 is made with lots of room for just make a GM call. Not nearly as much as some other games, but it is intended to have table variance.

To me though, if your going to down play any part of the text, might as well down play all of it, your in homebrew territory at that point.

Being large, being small, having tendrils instead of hands, just things that differ from the standard. Centaur for example simply can't do several typical adventuring type activities, like climbing a ladder or crawling. Hand waving those differences away for ease of use does a disservice to the very core of the identity of those differences IMO.

Required for it to work just means if there's rules for it then you know you can do it, instead of requiring buy in from your storyteller.
PBtA "experiences" is a new thing I've only seen in daggerheart, none of the other rules light systems I've seen have an open ended rule like that. Most tend to be sticking very close to a specific theme and thus the rules are more like a board game with very set options.

Not that I think PF2 or many of the other systems I've seen do a good job of having those rules, being physically nonstandard is usually seen as a problem to fix for ease of use. I love the variety of options in Rifts for example but that system leaves much to be desired.

I think that table consensus is great for any system and helps improve everyone's experience when everyone is like minded, however when that's required for someone's idea to work then that's a problem for people like me who rely on random online groups.

I haven't played any PBtA, I've only played Overlight and read the rules for several other games that all seemed very theme focused. While few games give much room to be non standard humanoid, it feels like rules heavy games are more likely to give you tools to express that experience without having to rely on someone else.

I don't watch any TTRPG content creators other then the Mythkeeper for Golarian lore, so I don't really know what people are looking for in that regard. One of the live plays I watch recently did a game of Lancer while a few members were away, everyone was new to it and seemed to enjoy it. It's not something I would be very interested in but several people in chat were very into it and knowledgeable. They have also played a few other systems as short specials and that seems like a good way to expose people to new systems.
It's not likely to make a lot of engaging discussions unless the content is about the social aspects of the game, so I think that's likely the common outcome.

Hasbro is mining D&D for cash, that will eventually kill it unless someone else buys it.

My issue with rules light is that it rarely properly represents certain things, they all have certain assumptions about your character and going outside that box rarely works. It's hard enough in 5e and PF2 to be large and have that be a meaningful part of your character beyond visuals. So long as there's mechanics that fit my strange characters I would be happy with lite or crunchy rules, there just needs to be lots of options.

Also D&D into dagger heart is basically just following the money. We'll see if it holds up but we've always known the big $$ isn't pathfinder. Many people would like dagger heart to replace 5e as the big standard rules light that everyone plays and makes content for, so they can do so with less guilt at supporting a greedy company.

When/if the time comes that people don't just wholly watch D&D content, then pathfinder and other games can get more coverage but it has to get the views, and with that market twisting as it has been it doesn't seem likely.

Shadow and dread are ones I look for on many of my characters, because they help with things my characters tend to do. The majority of other runes, and indeed many other items in general, do not. Most niche items aren't worth keeping around and remembering to use in their rare situation they would be useful. Most groups I've played in tend to sell things that aren't readily useful.

Most bonuses and effects are so small that you have to use something 10-20 times to have it actually effect a roll or a situation. So it's far better to have something your going to use every day then something you might use once or twice ever.

A horned dragon in the open should wreck most parties. If you get within 40 feet, it can charge and carry you 160 feet away in one turn.
The ability to separate PCs makes them more deadly then similar threats.
Your either prepared to deal with what it can do, or your likely dead. Even if your equal or higher level it's abilities make it a huge threat.

Without the speed it would still be a massive threat, charge, impale, fly up or over hazardous terrain. Getting free might not even be desirable at that point, fight one on a mountain and it drops you off a cliff.
I agree there are certain monsters like dragons that by the numbers work, but some of those abilities really have the opportunity to be much more threatening then the numbers suggest, and I don't think monster level is really able to reflect that. Ancient dragons have uncommon to suggest they could be problematic but a lot of people don't like the rarity system being used that way and adults don't have uncommon but can be very problematic.

The big question becomes, by the time you would face such threats, should you be ready to face literally everything around a corner, or are some creatures more worthy of some tag to express their complexity?

A reliable, free 5 foot push is incredibly powerful if you have some slam down martials in your group and some difficult terrain or jagged berms type ability going on. Enemy has to move into reach with you again, making it just as good as slow, and can trigger RS.

Mechanically, Quick Disguise at Master proficiency does what I want. Mundane disguises just feel like they're more limited in what one can reasonably ask to attempt, and like there are more bits of evidence to worry about.

Just want to put in that magic in PF2 isn't break the laws of reality like it used to be, high level skill feats are just as powerful as many spells.

Settling what items Eidolons can use would be a great start. Straightening out all the dragon Eidolons.
Changing the Eidolons monster abilities to be grouped like Monk and Ranger spells would be amazing, then they could just add new abilities by saying what tier a summoner can get them.
More Eidolon type specific feats would be great.
Changing blood frenzy to be more in line with remaster rage would be great.

Tentacle monsters with 30 foot reach would be unassailable.

Putting a requirement of "the target must be within 30 feet and not have any bonus to cover" for any called shot type ability would put you in that close and needing to move to get the right angle situation.

I don't think ranged off guard should be on the table, it helps certain classes far more then others.
In a perfect world we would have class feats to improve on basic called shots, but that's a whole other set of homebrew.

Static shooting is realistic, but it's not heroic. So moving for the right angle needs to be rewarded more to make ranged combat more engaging.

If it were to be something I'd do, I'd only ever do it once, and even then not for a super important fight. IMO the point of those kinds of jokes is to gently remind the party that the world is alive and will sometimes respond to cheesy tactics they employ with cheesy tactics of their own, not to punish them for being organized and prepared for danger.

I wouldn't do something like that as it's a bit too fourth wall breaking for my style of play. Otherwise I don't allow the cheese in the first place, nearly all buffs are for one combat and setting up ambushes to be able to prebuff requires stealth for the whole group. I don't run and have actually never been in a group that plays as tactical door kickers.

So while the OP may or may not have been super serious, I do think it's good to know how to get the most out of your limited slots and often very limited time in combat to be the most efficient. +12 for possibly one attack though better be on your barbarian as otherwise that seems overkill and becomes less efficient.

OrochiFuror wrote:

Remaster took a lot of power away from fighter

I must have missed this. What did the remaster take away from the fighter?

What Shoebox said. You used to be able to take archer or mauler and be better off then anyone else at swapping to ranged and using Felling strike as your tactical flexibility feat or have knockdown pole arm and sword dualing for a mix of great offense and a more defensive style.

That's a lot of flexibility that's gone now.

But it does bring up the humorous thought. Party is outside bossmonster's door, the bard fervently casting all their 1-minute duration buffs. Then in a 'round 0' flash the fighter slams open the door while the bard casts Tempest of Shades so that the first round of actual combat they can combo that with their 1A aid + 1A composition + 1A True Target, and the party finds...a note. "Spellcasting is loud. I heard you. Be back in 90 seconds when you're completely out of mojo."

Frankly, the whole thing sounds a bit like one of Ravingdork's hypotheticals.

Some people do play that way, even some here. I doubt many players would appreciate such a prank as that note, heh.

I hope to get to play SF2, like pathfinder I never played the original.

I'm unsure about mixing the rule sets though. While basically the same, they do have different balance points. SF2 groups against PF2 melee focused enemies seems like it would be rough. Finder2e is easy to adjust for just about any group, but APs and such seem like they would be problematic trying to mix and match.

Fighter is just the best combat class in the game, nothing can out damage a fighter doing its fighting style with the defense the fighter has. Remaster heavy armor barb can get real close though sometimes. Remaster took a lot of power away from fighter and upped barb so they are much closer now for certain builds.

As for the play test stuff, I can't imagine Guardian turning out well. Little going for it besides its proficiencies and even those weren't great. Everything on it was just too little for what it was trying to do.

The necro looks like its getting some much needed improvements, but I still think it will have to be uncommon for how disruptive its primary mechanic can be.

The fact that the same creature in a different region would need its own lore page generally tells you that most of Pathfinders creatures have more depth to them then older editions.
I think there's plenty of info on each page to get a GMs mind working on different ways each creature could work.

Might want to add that the target can't have any bonus from cover, to make sure you have a clear line of fire. Having to move around to get around allies providing enemies cover or in SF2 just getting around any cover should have a greater benefit. Instead of just getting over a penalty, moving around for a clear shot seems like proper ranged play to me. Therefore getting in to the right position, either for one shot or a vantage point for multiple rounds, coupled with this crit effect would help make ranged combat more interesting.

I think the big problem with ranged combat is how it's used. Because in APs and such starting more then 30 feet away from an enemy is rare, so ranged combatants with 60+ range are already missing out on one or more rounds of taking advantage of what their weapon of choice is good for.

So if all ranged weapons are nearly always used in close range, what other things could be done to make them more interesting? Perhaps a new type of action, a mix of spell shapes and maneuvers, name them called shots or something. Critical Opening could be a perception called shot.

Take a knee, make a Create a diversion check with the following results. Success: your next ranged attack if it hits imposes a 10 foot per damage die movement penalty for one round. The enemy can spend one action to recover from this effect.
Failure: no benefit.

Synesthesia: best debuff.

Wall of stone: if you can make towers it's the best CC, if not it's still amazing in smaller spaces.

Eclipse burst: highest damage aoe with good range and area.

Chain lightning: best offensive spell, no friendly fire so unlike all other aoe spells it's always an option.

Regeneration: Sometimes not dying is a great boon, also reattach limbs in case of emergency.

That was the experience in one of my Ruby Phoenix games with a player that really tried to make it work, and just fell behind as they got higher and higher level. They could do a LOT of things and the versatility was great, but when it came time to "I want to take the enemy out in melee?" It's pretty meh.

I played a wild druid in FotRP, I used the legacy six pillar AT to get legendary melee. I would cast a buff or aoe spell after moving in and often reaction shift.

My least favorite class is hard to say, all casters that don't have something else going for them mostly.

Otherwise it's builds and options for classes, because ranger, inventor, gunslinger and psychic all have perhaps one good build otherwise most of what they bring can be done by some other class.
Then there's rogue that I dislike just because it has too much going for it.

Fighter: Just a great basis for your skilled at combat characters. Has several crazy good level 10 feats.

Barbarian: Remastered barb with heavy armor is easy and has noticeably more AC so is a beast in combat.

Kineticist: Amazing flavor and interesting abilities. Fun combos to make.

Thaumaturge: Great flavor of using tools to overcome obstacles, leans into a lot of different concepts.

Summoner: Spell casting, full martial companion, one of the best focus spells in the game, action sharing in combat and out. What's not to love. Fantastic RP potential in having two characters.

John R. wrote:

I'm confident with more work and assets added, this mod could seamlessly apply the PF2 base rules enough that it could be all but officially considered a PF2 video game, no less than BG3 is considered a 5e video game.

Yes, absolutely. There still would be differences also in places which are hardcoded or important for the plot (like Speak with dead, which is basically free (ritual) spell in the game and which has no analogue in pf2; focus spells could work, but you only get those with feats, and not just learn them; pf2 rituals are too long, hard and expensive).

BTW the mod authors also repurposed/modded/made a lot of visual effects for spells and other things already.

The hard coded bit is what makes me doubtful. I've seen so many devs shoot themselves in the foot by building a non modular system and then when they need to change something they simply can't without redoing the whole thing. This is often ten times worse for moders trying to use that system.

While I think Larian are likely better off then most as BG3 runs off the same engine setup they have for DoS2, so could be fairly easy to modify.

I'm very interested in how/if they get summoner or Witch working, some mechanics are going to be hard if nothing similar is in the game.
Also would be great if they create or use an expansive ancestry list to the mod.

I have a hard time imagining it working, but will check it out sometime and hopefully be surprised.

Since one is invisible, you could let them keep their agency and flee before the spell wears off. Have the enemies start dragging the other characters into carts and hauled away while the invisible player fights walls of soldiers. Then they could follow and free their friends later.
You have to allow player agency to ruin your plans and find a way to go with the flow. So long as you can keep them interested and involved, then you should be able to pivot to a similar or new idea.

I don't like the whole cloth advice of don't do it, but rather keep in mind your plans need to be able to change for the players. Some of the best scenarios can be when a GM says "I didn't expect us to be here, but here we are." It can be rough sometimes, but try to always have a plan for when the players turn your plan upside down. Usually not a detailed plan either, more of a set of ideas or a methodology for incorporating crazy ideas and bizarre outcomes.

OrochiFuror wrote:

Why? All the planer dragons are Paizo originals aren't they? I don't see a need for this and sort of just makes things more difficult.

My guess is that it's a "Yes, but" situation. The planes themselves weren't altogether Paizo originals, and the old iterations were more heavily tied in with alignment. Distinct names allows distinguishing "This is for OGL, and this is for ORC".

I certainly expect there's a good reason for it to be such a consistent thing of using different names.

While understandable, it makes me want to punch Hasbro. The whole thing, and all its subsidiaries and tell them to cut it out, let people have fun.