Palinurus's page

We don't currently have a trait that specifies 'both' instead of 'either or'.

It is something that should be considered, but at the same time firearms are going to have quite a few traits already.

This could be built into the firearm trait. Versatile firearms count as both piercing and bludgeoning. Choose the most favorable. ... or similar wording.

Blue jay, technically I believe you are correct. As retributive strike is contingent on the damage happening, and shield block is triggered by damage about to happen, but retributive strike retroactively applies resistance to the individual for the attack. So you would calculate the damage from attack, the choose of if they shield block is made, based on that. Then if damage gets through to ally, the retributive strike gets triggered and resistance is retroactively applied to the attack. This could then reduce or eliminate any or all damage damage done.

It could be clearer. The trigger is "An enemy damages your ally ..." and this must refer to a damaging effect being successfully applied rather than the damage being calculated. The latter is step 4 in the sequence for calculating damage and resistances are applied in step 3. So if the trigger was step 4 then retributive strike would never have any effect at all.This is also consistent with "On a successful check, you hit and deal damage" earlier on the same page.

So shield block applies after retributive strike.

...

Agree completely. I think boosting hit rolls is tricky because stacking a boost with true strike could be OP, but there's probably a neat solution that prevents this.

In Age of Ashes (which is pretty brutal for casters - at least early on) only the Bard and Wizard have been able to outright wreck encounters (at least from mid levels). Phantasmal Killer has outright killed at least three enemies and 4th level Sleep from the Enchanter often removes 1-2 foes from the encounter. Synesthesia is just brutal as a debuff.

Clever uses of spells like Command, Resilient Sphere or Illusory Creature also change encounter difficulty dramatically. Blasting is very powerful against multiple targets or targets with weak reflex saves. It has taken a while to get used to 2e spells - initially I struggled with spell choice and overlooked spells that I would never have picked in 1e or that had incapacitation. Once I got past that it has been much more interesting and effective.

What I have got from this is my gms habit of building set piece encounters where if any of us don't feel threatend he feels he hasn't done his job right is not as common as I thought it was.

I don't think it is that common. My Age of Ashes party has two strong front liners - a fighter and a sword and board war priest with champion dedication. In most fights it is a struggle for enemies to get past the front line (and they usually regret it if they do as the wizard and bard are nearly always within 15' of the cleric). Intelligent opponents usually try and drop the fighter and cleric.

Same for summons. Summons are much worse now. No feats to support them, the spell itself is less powerful, etc. On occasion you MAY run...

Summons can be very effective in providing flanking (though it depends on party composition whether that's useful) and special attacks or abilities. Positioning - blocking corridors and doorways or just eating up attacks from unintelligent opponents helps. They won't reliably hit high AC opponents (even with flanking) but it is a nice bonus if they do. So they are situational, but will get stronger as bestiary options get added.

Champions are a very well designed and balanced class.

I've found a sword and board Warpriest with Champion dedication to be incredibly effective at damage mitigation. I like that there are different strategies for damage mitigation between parties in 2e, but I think it could be brutal if you don't use some combination of tactics and party composition. When everything falls into place some severe encounters can end up fairly benign (but fun because the party have earned it).

That said, there is one encounter each in AoA book 1 and book 2 that are a bit overtuned. This also happened in some 1e adventure paths (and is arguably more understandable in AoA). My players nearly TPK'd in book 1 of RotRL (though unlike AoA the encounter equivalent encounter there is avoidable). There were also a lot of RotRL encounters where the rogue spent several turns fleeing ... (which I'm glad to say has almost disappeared in 2e).

I like where Bards have ended up. They are definitely in the top three for overall power (depending on your definition). I think it is reasonable to use them as benchmark for upper limits of what a class should be able to do. I think they are a good example of how party composition is more important to optimization in 2e than it was in 1e. Champion and cleric have a similar ability to transform how a party functions (though they are a little harder to build optimally than a Bard who acts as a force multiplier from level 1).

Other than the Electric Arc issue, these are all easily fixed by houserules -

Ignore Incapacitation.

I'm personally OK with incapacitation, but if I had to change it I'd remove the one step improvement in saves and have it only turn a critical fail into a fail.

I think the main take away in PF2 is, every group should have a bard.

Which honestly probably means the bard should be nerf'd.

I'm part way through running AoA with a Fighter, Bard, Warpriest Cleric and Enchanter Wizard. It is a pretty strong combination. The Wizard notably under-contributed up until level 2 or 3. The cleric was a bit lackluster (apart from healing) until taking the Champion dedication and with Heavy armor, shield and the reaction she is very solid. The wizard is really strong in book 2 of AoA as there are plenty of single encounter days and the first big encounter area was made somewhat easier with spell substitution and invisibility for scouting. It was still very tough and at one point only the bard and wizard were left standing.

My experience from the playtest and AoA is that a cleric (or later levels a Divine sorcerer) is amazing in any party just for the healing. Other casters can provide in combat healing but not as well or for as long. The bard likewise fits into any party but isn't as important as you can cover buffing with other casters. For example, in the playtest the martials were nearly always buffed by Heroism for +1 or +2. A bard would have boosted damage more, but honestly the martials (a Rogue and a Monk) didn't have problems in that department. If they rolled moderately well they would destroy most opposition (and just needed healing to keep upright in patches they rolled badly). The bid advantage the Bard has is that it is pretty difficult not to be good at buffing.

At low levels an all martial party is probably viable, but there are challenges in AoA that would have been near impossible without spells (notably Dispel Magic). A single caster party is definitely viable - especially with a Rogue to cover skills.

All this with the caveat that playstyle may impact viability. The wizard would be less useful if your players aren't interested in at least minimal scouting or researching before major encounters. For inexperienced players I think that Fighter, Cleric, Bard and Champion might be a pretty effective combination.

I feel like the low level version exists almost entirely in the interest of keeping Silence as a 2nd level spell that exists.

The heightened version is the extremely useful version we know and love.

"In the spell area, no one can hear you scream."

"Also you're a wizard so its additionally extremely inconvenient and you're pretty much doomed."

It is very powerful in the right context. I used silence and invisibility on the party Fighter to great effect in a very tough AoA encounter (effectively negating the terrain advantage of the opponents). It feels about right at second level - useful but not so good that you'd always prepare it.

This looks amazing. I will try them in action as soon as I get time to transfer my existing characters. So far my main disappointment with Pathfinder 2e is the lack of a great character sheet. We got spoiled using your 3.5 and 1e character sheets. I made a small donation as a thank you.

Another example is if you had Hunt Prey, Monster Warden, Battle Assessment, and Educated Assessment. Whenever you Hunt Prey, you'd get the effects of Educated Assessment.

As well as kicking in when you use recall knowledge (e.g., in a spell such as Hypercognition) it presumably applies outside combat if you use recall knowledge.

So far it seems to have played out similarly to PF 1e for casters. My 1e experience was that casters could be amazing for one or two fights and then more-or-less useless.

Early levels can be very tough (but easier for healing because of Treat Wounds) and it is important to plan for meaningful other actions. My only slight gripe was that too many combats involved spamming electric arc because it tends to be the optimal choice with two targets (at low levels). From level 3 onwards I didn't find it an issue. Having really useful 1st level spells (3 action magic missile, fear, phantom pain etc.) meant I rarely had to burn through 2nd level spells quickly. The main casters also had scrolls as backups. This is a four person party going through Age of Ashes; fighter, bard, cleric, wizard.

Pacing of encounters is important. Presently in book 2 and there are lots of one per day encounters that pretty fun because you can burn through slots without too many worries. I think there could be an issue with forcing many encounters per day (though scrolls and staves will now make that manageable I think).

Kind of difficult to choose new targets if you're unconscious, so I'd say it stops firing in that case.

I'd say you are no longer wielding the wand if you are unconscious.

Second, personally I'd rate Fear top tier in actual play because of how useful the effect on a successful save is (and if they fail the save Frightened 2 is amazing).

Is it really all that useful to have your opponent frightened (maybe) for one round? I've usually found it to be good (green), but not fantastic (blue).

I may be biased because it was so useful in the last two encounters I played (both severe). It remains useful at pretty much any level, it increases chances of landing other debuffs and combines nicely with common buffs like inspire courage. Maybe if your party is structured to provide fear effects easily its less useful - but in most parties it is going to be effective. I prefer it to color spray because its easier to stay out of melee and because it so useful against higher level foes.

Excellent guide. Just a couple of points. First drain bonded item doesn't allow you to cast any spell in your spell book (it must be one prepared and already cast). Second, personally I'd rate Fear top tier in actual play because of how useful the effect on a successful save is (and if they fail the save Frightened 2 is amazing).

Basic Attack Routine versus Optimal Build seems disingenuous at best and deliberately or maliciously obtuse at worst.

That's a pretty horrible thing to imply. I don't think people realise how much work it can take to simulate this. As someone else pointed out it is always a good idea to have a clear logic to how you work through simulations of different scenarios. The default assumption should be that someone is actually trying to produce a simulation that answers a useful question. It may not be the question that you are interested in.

I'd recommend the wizard or cleric specialising in summoning (especially one of the options for single action summons) - that should help both the frontliner and the rogue. Unchained rogue is not a bad option starting at level 5 as I suspect ToEE is probably quite trap heavy. Also worth considering classes that get a companion (summoner, druid, sylvan sorcerer or some cleric domains)if you are regularly in combat with that many opponents - having a T-rex or big cat can really help at these levels.

Yes - there is no benefit for a non-agile second weapon unless you have class etc abilities or weapon traits that are helpful (e.g. parry, twin, thrown). Using two identicall weapons is rarely useful unless it has the twin trait or you plan to throw one.

Considering my sorcerer had 26 HP and 17 AC and never took any damage...I'm not sure what you mean by "unworkable."

My angelic sorcerer - arguably one of the weakest builds - had Cha 18 and 16 int and survived chapter 1 of the playtest just fine. Generally the enemy either couldn't get to her or focused attacks on the front liners that were about to kill them.

Dire Ursus wrote:

You have to wonder. All of the GMs I've seen on this forum that claim full TPKs on every chapter are also ones that if you look at their post history were overly unhappy and negative of the system as soon as it was announced. It really can't be a coincidence.

Yeah, confirmation bias, I am seeing some of it on both sides (those initially overly excited and shilling PF2, now claiming it runs perfectly and they have 0 problems with any encounters, etc). Some on both sides have probably not even played, it's just the way of things.

Indeed. I have had mostly very good playtest experiences so far but still recognise problems in the system. I think play and GM style matter greatly in TPKs. I generally get few player deaths in PF1 (or 3.5 etc.) but have played in groups (or watched play in groups) which seem to have lots of deaths - and style seems to be a big factor. A simple example: if I GM and a player declares an action that (in game) their character would 100% know is stupid or risky I will warn them (especially for a new player - less so for an experienced player). I've seen games where the GM doesn't do that.

Personally, I'd like to see more spells that have effect on a successful save and cantrips get a small bump in damage to make them strictly better than using a magic crossbow (currently, they track very closely to that).

However, the real issues I've seen with casters haven't had much to do with their damaging spells. Heck, damaging spells have worked better than the non-damaging ones.

I largely agree. We're still play testing but our experience is that spells are not far off where they need to be. I'd like to see a small boost to damaging spells including cantrips, more interesting partial effects on saves and a bit of un-nerfing of utility spells (depending on the spell in question). The sorcerer also probably needs a bit of a boost (maybe just for the Divine spell list).

Some of this could be done tweaking spell lists - but also maybe some of this could be done by improving class or other feat options..

I think the model of "consumables function without resonance, but are more effective if you spend resonance" has potential.

Like 1 RP spent when drinking a healing potion makes it heal more, and 1 RP spent when reading a scroll heightens it (otherwise it's cast at the level it was written at, say.)

I think something like this could definitely work - even if it was just for healing. I'd also incentivise boosting more powerful consumables if it was a multiplier rather than an additive boost. They'd still need to fix resonance for alchemists and add more points at low levels.

This happened to me and 2 other players at my table last night.

We wen't able to react or attempt to really do anything until we were at our necks in sand.

This happened to the lead PC in our party, but I could't see any reason to have the reaction affect multiple PCs. That seems a bit brutal, but it did make for a more interesting encounter.

I don't see a way to avoid the sewer ooze, and haven't heard of ANY group skipping it. I had it in the puddle to the NE of the hatch.

I can imagine that the falling rock trap is activated by pulling the rope, so cutting the rope makes it too high up for the goblins to reach and pull :>

His melee attack is either his sword or his claw. The "melee" action lists his options for attacking in melee.

The claw's grab is the only way he has to do so (the rat in the encounter was confirmed by the devs to have been misplaced and should not be included in the fight. If it was still there, he could flank with it to treat an enemy as flat footed.)

With regard to flat-footed Drakus could also feint.

bwee wrote:

I have no idea why your party is consistently dying, the fights are difficult but not "always a TPK"

The thing is, then every fight is a 'near TPK' it doesn't take much to push it into a total TPK'. A low healing roll, a missed swing, a monster crit, low initiative, ect. We had combat start, monsters went first, resulting in multiple people on the ground all before a single player action. There is a razor thin margin for survival in a non-cleric party from what I've seen. Things turn south quickly and it's quite tough to turn it around without using all your resources or a cleric.

I find this surprising. I've had no deaths or TPKs and run a non-cleric party for Lone Star and a non-optimised cleric for Pale Mountain. There have been tough encounters but not close to TPK.

So I've go through the rules and forums. There is a lot of debate and interpretation, enough to confuse someone working out some of the details. So here is my question.

When Alchemists do their daily prep? Do they use RP (Resonance) to make bombs? Potions?

I know other PCs use RP to drink potions and Alchemists use healing potions they made with quick alchemy at no additional RP cost. But I'm trying to nail down their daily prep costs.

Also, does daily prep for an alchemist cost money to make bombs/potions as well as a craft roll?

Thanks.

It doesn't cost money, but they do spend resonance for items like bombs and healing elixirs (but at the rate of 1 RP for two items). Quick alchemy is more flexible but is 1 RP for any item in their formula book.

There may be other ways to run this, but I played with a Angelic Sorcerer in part 3, and he held his own quite well in comparison to the clerics.

This is good to hear - I had a divine sorcerer in Lost Star and liked the concept but feel it needs a bit of help at lower levels. I'm looking forward to seeing how it goes at level 9.

I was a little dismayed that one of my favorite classes, the Oracle was removed from the new Pathfinder.

To be fair - it wasn't really removed. They added one of the base classes to core rules and I believe they nearly chose Oracle (two if you include Cavalier). I took from that they intend to add the base classes back in in some way (though some might be added as archetypes like Cavalier).

The Only Sheet wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

That's a tad too much for me (messy), Spell Attacks, Spell DCs, and Spell Rolls, certainly some streamlining might be nice.

I was about to post the exact same comment... So much for simplifying the rules :(

Yeah, the only simplification I'm seeing is the +Level treadmill (but I dislike it), aside from that, overall, seems more fiddly than pretty much every previous edition of D&D/PF, aside from 1st Ed AD&D, if you really dig in (actually use all the rules).

I think the spell DC is spell roll + 10 (which replaces a more complex formula) and the spell roll replaces caster level checks and separately listed rolls from spells like black tentacles or spiritual weapon). So I think it is simpler than previous editions. However I agree that the different rolls could be presented more clearly.

Note that the "swinginess" of the PF2 playtest has been discussed in several other threads (plus others):

Regarding the "Coin Flip Problem"
Monster Skills: A Serious Problem
Attack Bonuses are too high for level-0 creatures

For what it's worth, it seems as if the monsters could stand to be toned down slightly (-1 or -2 on bonuses), especially at lower levels.

Yes - though not necessarily just by changing the bonuses. For example giant centipedes would have been much more fun with toned down poison. We're nor finding fights a coin flip - but players are having to use movement, debuffs etc. cleverly on most encounters. The main issue (for us) is that too many encounters are severely resource depleting, but toning down monsters a little and boosting some classes (the most resource dependent ones) would be useful. The announced resonance fixes seem to point in the right direction.

N N 959 wrote:

Double Slice is a two-action Strike. You can only do it once per turn. That also means you can't use it in any round that you have to move and Command Animal.

Yep. I found it almost totally useless. Quick Draw is essential to even try. I had an animal companion and rarely used it because I needed to move and attack. Over the entire Pale Mountain adventure I only got my alpha strike of Working Together with animal companion and Double Slice attack twice.

To get that over a fighter, the ranger gets worse armour, no shield option, and -1 to hit.
I never used Hunt Target.
Two weapon fighting is very hard with the action economy. It doesn't have any good options.
The clerics and druids have better initiative, survival and nature skills.
I do like that Rangers don't have spells, but having tried one, they really do suck in this playtest.

We have a switch hitter for Pale Mountain that seems to work well. Usually starts as quick draw Longbow with hunt target and then quick draw shortsword and main gauche if switching to melee. He has been a bit unlucky (the first half of our initial encounter no D20 roll over 10). He has the best hit points and AC in the party (23 if he parries). I think a fighter would be mechanically stronger in combat but the skills have been really useful.

graystone wrote:

That and with monsters superior combat numbers, they more often go first, crit and the party starts of their combat down and out.

This is key, any critical hit system vastly favours monsters over PCs, another reason I am surprised they have made critical hits/fumbles such a core part of the game.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Previously it favoured multiple attacks, but here there is a more complex relationship between attack bonus, AC, number of attacks and MAPs. High CR single monsters seem to be the main problem as crits from the weaker creatures haven't phased us much in actual play (unlike poison - which seems slightly too strong for some creatures). In the last fight there were three crits by monsters and only one dropped PC (two crits were natural 20s). The monsters were not particularly intelligent and mainly attacked the closest targets. The party were a bit depleted from a very tough earlier encounter - but switched tactics to be more defensive before the encounter began.

We've had no TPKs but a few encounters with PCs or animal companions (and one familiar) reduced to zero, but no deaths. In most cases the dropped PCs were back in the fight by burning hero points.

Charon Onozuka wrote:

While preparing to run Lost Star tonight, I'm having a bit of trouble trying to figure out how the set the DCs to identify any magic items the party finds.

Reading through the rules, it seems that identifying items would use the Identify Magic activity from the Arcana/Nature/Occultism/Religion skills, which takes an hour to perform (except for scrolls which take a minute if you have the spell on your spell list). However, the table of DCs which the Identify Magic activity refers to is only for identifying spells, which isn't helpful for magic items which lack a spell level.

So does anyone know how you are supposed to set the DC for identifying items? Right now, the closest thing I can think of is to use the general skill DC chart (Table 10-2) and setting the difficulty to the same as monster identification (low for common, high for uncommon, and severe for rare/unique).

I think you are on the right track but I don't have my book on hand to check.

That’s what we did. I think I would use trivial for something they had identified before. However, checking the book you use spell effect level for items. Table 4-2 on page 146. A first level spell or can’t rip is typically DC 13. The DC table on p.336 has low at 12 and high at 14 for level one. That could use clearing up because some items don’t have obvious spell levels.

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Shady Stranger wrote:

Definitely DO NOT get rid of Bulk

Ya, Bulk is fine. DMs that want to ignore it can do so just like many DMs ignored encumbrance before.

The way I see it, Bulk is just a decent way to track encumbrance if you DON'T want to ignore it.

And it allows for characters with less strength to carry more. Being a Rogue in 1e kinda sucked, because of that. It was always a balancing act.

Yes - bulk seems fine so far. I think the only issue might be with alchemists - which could be very fixable with some tweaks to equipment or the class.

Palinurus wrote:

One of my players discovered this combo with the universalist wizard. True strike, magical striker and strike with hand of the apprentice. It has been pretty effective. Generally it seems easier now to build effective Gish builds. Full casters maybe need a little more boosting.

I think the biggest problem with full casters is that the spell lists are pretty disappointing, but I figure that's just because of the page limit for the playtest. I'm sure the fleshed out lists will make them much better.

I think there are some issues with class feats needing an upgrade in some cases and sorcerer bloodlines. The spell lists will improve, I'm sure, but I'd like to see more or better use of the graded success options. More spells with partial success on a successful save and a few spells strengthened a little. At the moment only cleric feels at more-or-less about the right level (and some of the domains are a bit weak). However, even the full casters are enjoying the playtest so far.

One of my players discovered this combo with the universalist wizard. True strike, magical striker and strike with hand of the apprentice. It has been pretty effective. Generally it seems easier now to build effective Gish builds. Full casters maybe need a little more boosting.

Zorae wrote:

Honestly, they just need to make the level 1 angelic bloodline not terrible.

I'd like to see angelic halo be 24 hours. Seems a little weird that you are an angel for 1 minute x spell points per day. The rest of the time you are just like everyone else.

10 minutes would be OK. In present form it is very underwhelming.

Alchemaic wrote:

Alchemist.

Not sure if this is meant to say that you're unhappy with the current implementation of the Alchemist class?

Anyway, so far, results are:

Occultist - 2 votes
Summoner - 2 votes
Witch - 3 votes
- - -
(Alchemist - 1 vote? - not too sure why this has showed up since it's in the game already but...)
Gunslinger - 1 vote
Investigator - 1 vote
Kineticist - 1 vote

The Inquisitor also interestingly had 2 votes but those were "secondary" choices.

Commoner and expert templates were also mentioned once each, though they technically are not PC classes.

Definitely witch for me too.

SuperSheep wrote:

There's a lot of wiggle room between freely heightening 2 spells and All spells. Perhaps upping the baseline to 4. Or increasing it regularly. Say 2 to start and 1 for every other new spell level leaving you with 5 free by level 19.

Sure, If the consensus is that sorc's are underpowered that can be done.

So far, only non-Arcanes seem underpowered, most people seem to be reporting that arcane sorc's are ok.

That being so, I don't think extra heightenings will help. It might beef up non-arcanes, but arcanes would also get boosted (and because of their better spell list it would probably boost them more).

I think I'd favour boosting bloodline abilities and class feats slightly.

Palinurus wrote:

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Cleric absolutely needs a nerf to channel (they are otherwise fine). Making everyone as good as the current cleric would make the game a cakewalk.

I disagree - but my dwarf cleric only has three heals a day (but the battle cleric feat is really helping). My playtest experience so far suggests improving other healers would be better. I think with an optimised healer cleric you can get by with only one source of healing but it feels as though you need a couple to get by without one at the moment.

Dwarf Cleric with no charisma still has more Channel uses than a divine sorcerer (2 to 0).

True - my other character is a Divine sorcerer - and I think could do with buffing at level one. Yet to see how effective she is at higher levels.

In the overview p. 24, it says dwarves "Few dwarves are seen without

a clan dagger, a weapon forged just before an individual dwarf’s birth and bearing the gemstone of the clan"

Where did this come from? Seems very out of place in established Golarion lore. Furthermore, in the equipment chapter, it's an uncommon weapon costing 25 sp. If few dwarves are seen without one, do dwarves get a clan dagger as a bonus piece of equipment, because I don't see many choosing this weapon with their limited starting money. And by making it uncommon, rather than a regular dagger with special significance to dwarves, most dwarven characters can't even use it effectively.

I didn't mind the addition to Golarion lore, but getting proficiency was an issue. One of my characters had a Dwarf wizard and wanted it as his arcane focus, but even after spending a fear for racial proficiency he didn't get proficiency with the clan dagger. I house ruled it, but it could with some explicit proficiency support if it is so integral to clan identity.

I've run all of the first chapter of DD and we're 3 encounters into Pale Mountain and have had one PC death and only 2 PCs go to zero. We were robbed of the difficulty of the last fight in Lost Star do to poor PC tactics which split the party.

However skill wis and general power-wise all of these PCs feel weaker than their first Ed counterparts. So saying they succeed in everything is far from the truth at lower levels.

My experience is similar - at least four characters dropped (plus the animal companion and a familiar) in Lost star and Pale mountain so far. No deaths but some close calls and a fight that nearly ended in a TPK (though the bad rolling and sudden reversal would have probably led to a similar outcome in PF1).

Cantriped wrote:

Natural Ambition is overrated, most of it's value is tied to the relative scarcity of class feats at 1st level

Cantriped wrote:

General Training is admitedly pretty darn good compared to the absolute garbage filling out most of the Ancestry Feat Lists.

From my perspective, there just are too few GOOD feats all around. I looked at a human alchemist, looked at what I could get with those 'free' human feats and tossed out human and played an elf. The human feats kind of feel like an opportunity to dumpster dive to try to find a diamond in the rough but all you seem to find is a lot of coal. [though I admit, even the coal in general is better than what you find in ancestry]

Now if they eventually come up with enough good feats, they might be worth it but that's outside the playtest.

I agree - there are gems like Nimble and Hardy, but too many that don't are weak and also not particularly flavourful. I think this would be fairly easy to fix though.

Cleric absolutely needs a nerf to channel (they are otherwise fine). Making everyone as good as the current cleric would make the game a cakewalk.

I disagree - but my dwarf cleric only has three heals a day (but the battle cleric feat is really helping). My playtest experience so far suggests improving other healers would be better. I think with an optimised healer cleric you can get by with only one source of healing but it feels as though you need a couple to get by without one at the moment.

My group is having fun with the mechanics. And the playtest so far has been the most fun I've had GMing in combat. The unique actions and reactions of creatures are awesome.

We have had a lot of fun playtesting too. I've mostly enjoyed GMing a lot more and the players seem to find the encounters more varied.

I think Angelic might already be OK - though the channel feat is underwhelming. Spontaneous heightened heal could go a long way. So far the players experience suggests it is OK, but a bit stretched at level 1.

Where does it specify an enhancement?

Though, oddly , I feel like only Acid Flask's would multiply on a crit, as that is what is being applied (other than splash) via the attack roll.
but things like bleed, or alch fire's I don't think would be since they seem like the rider side effect of the main damage dice.

That is how I've ruled it. It multiplies if the base damage is persistent, but not otherwise.

Well remember the target of the attack probably doesn't take Splash damage when they are hit, so it wouldn't be 2d8+Int. Also I don't think Bottled Lightning's Flat-Footed is given on the Splash damage, since it mentions target so that probably only effects the target of the bomb on a success/critical success.

Yes - that is how we read it too. A previous poster mentioned persistent damage being easy to remove. We have found the DC 20 flat check reducing to DC 15 with an action pretty hard to reach.

Ryuujin-sama wrote:

Palinurus wrote:

Thaliak wrote:

While Alchemists' proficiency with bombs never increases, their empowered bombs grant a +1 item bonus to attack rolls at Level 15 and a +2 item bonus to attack rolls at level 19. Unfortunately, this bonus comes late, and it doesn't stack with the +2 item bonus from Alchemist's Goggles or the bonuses to ranged attacks from Quicksilver Mutagen. Nor does it match the +4 item bonus spellcasters can get to attack rolls with duelist's gloves or wands, or the +5 bonus weapon wielders can get from enhancement runes.

Just starting GMing Pale Mountain with an an alchemist PC. The alchemist is extremely effective - typically two bombs per round at level 4 each doing substantial damage and debuting on a hit and splash damage on a miss. I'd like a bit more clarity on how resonance interacts with crafting for them and a bit of a resonance buff but hitting isn't a problem in practice. The alchemist is by far the most consistent damage dealer when you figure in debuffs, persistent damage and crits.

This is interesting but it does make me wonder a few things.

So I am assuming they have 18 Int, so +4 Int mod, +4 for level so 8 Resonance. Assuming they use all of their Resonance at the start of the day they will have 16 bombs, this is not the best of ideas for various reasons but there it is. If they are throwing 2 bombs a round that means they run out for the day after 8 rounds. So after the first 8 rounds of the day, what do they do?

And if they aren't using all of their Resonance at the beginning of the day purely on Bombs then they will have considerably fewer.

So the Alchemist was doing what 2d6 damage at 3rd level, no Int modifier. By 4th level most martial characters will likely have a magical weapon that does at least that much, if not more, while also adding in Str mod to damage. And the martial characters will be able to attack 3 times per round, if they don't have to move. Which means the martial characters

...

Yes - resonance is an issue. Martial shouldn’t have +1 weapons until 5th (not routinely). Martials miss a lot. Generally you want to move, raise shield or do something tactical with the third action. Getting people flat footed to all targets is huge. Free damage like splash on a miss or persistent is also hugely effective at the levels we have played. My players may be unusual as they pick up on tactical options very quick, but they really liked having options other than full attack or charge.

Also forgot - alchemist has remarkable resonance - so 10 points - another clue that resonance is a bit low. Typically preparing 10-12 bombs per day with 4 or 5 in the locker for quick alchemy.