PawnJJ's page

There's a pdf of the flip mat which was the first and second level of the dungeon that is unlabeled.

Do the higher level spellhearts get the lower spells or at least the base cantrip?

I think this is getting blown a little out of proportion. I really doubt this is going to be a mandatory have to buy item (and even if it was... so what? martial's have a slew of mandatory buy runes why not casters)

Anyone can cherry pick random creatures in the bestiary to prove the point either way, but lets use a level 10 caster (+19 spell attack/29 spell DC) and see how they fair against a level 10 monster using the building creature rules, I think that would be representative of an average at level character you're fighting: AC: 29 / High Save: +22 (32) / Mid Save: +19 (29) / Low Save: +16 (26)

(hopefully my napkin math is right!)
-------------------------------------------------------

Ray of Frost: 5d4+5 17.5 avg non crit.

Against AC or Mid Save: you are critting on a 20, hitting on 10 and missing/crit missing below that. 5% double damage, 50% normal damage you're looking at an expected 10.5 damage.

Against a low save: you crit on a 17, hit on a 7 and miss/critmiss 6 and below. 20% crit and 50% hit raises your expected damage to 15.75. Pretty nice.

If you accidently hit the high save instead, then your damage drops to ~7.9.

So a 50% damage increase if you target the right save, that must be pretty OP!

Well... lets compare it to electric arc targeting only one person.

---------------------------------------------------------

Electric Arc: 5d4+5 17.5 avg non crit

Against the mid save the creature crit saves on a 20, saves on a 10 for half damage, fails on a 2-9 for full damage and crit fails on a 1 for double. So 5% zero damage, 50% half damage, 40% full damage, 5% crit damage. So you get an expected damage total of 13.125. That's well ahead of Ray's mid save, and only a few points behind Ray targeting low save.

When hitting the targets low save the expected damage is ~16.2 which is ahead of the spell attacks low save.

And when you target the high save, expected damage is 10.5 which is the same as if you had targeted the mid save with shadow signet.

----------------------------------------------------------

Looking at that it makes it seem like a level 10 item your shelling out 1000g for is making your ray of frost comparable in damage to a single target electric arc.... pardon me if I'm not blown away. (and I know you can bring up produce flames crit effect, or telekinetic projectiles higher die size, but I can always just calculate hitting two targets with arc...)

----------------------------------------------------------

Why did I use cantrips? because honestly there's not a lot of good attack spells in the game. My first thought when I saw the item was for an occult caster so they could target non-will easier, but they don't really have a lot of good spell attack options, I think I'd rather save the 1000g and stick with magic missile and slow. I suppose Signet would be nice to try to super-disintegrate a low fort creature but that seems rather niche, not a must buy for every caster.

And honestly by level 10 how often are you spamming cantrips? My level 8 sorcerer barely ever uses one in a meaningful fight.

HammerJack wrote:

Only one contingency spell can be active on you at a time, so you're replacing your previous Lucky Number. The thread title doesn't really work, as a result. It's less "all of the numbers are my lucky number" and more "I kept burning time and spells until the one low number I wanted was my lucky number".

Wow. They buried that trait way back in the Glossary.

If you can only ever have one, why did they bother talking about immunity then in the spell description?

Because you could cast it after a combat where you used it to get the contingency up and running again.

Seems pretty weak to me since you have decent odds of rolling a number you wouldn't want to reroll along with the low chance of rolling your lucky number. I'm thinking of house ruling it as either initially rolling a d12 (or d10) to guarantee a lowish roll you'd like to reroll; or have it apply to enemy saving throws caused by you so the potential high results can be good for you too

I honestly forgot I made this post so I haven't been checking it. Just finished reading all the replies.

Does a bard have any decent ways of expanding their spell selection into other sources like sorcerers or divine casters can? (Without archetypes)

Aside from aid, what are the best ways to grant decently high circumstance bonuses to attack (or damage for that matter)?

Polymath bard can steal from any spell list, but not till level 18.

On Focus points: Specifically for non-curse focus spells, they are essentially once per day abilities for combat purposes. Assuming 3 FP and going into battle not cursed, you'll spend your first two getting up to moderate. Refocusing only gets you one back, so you basically have one floating focus to use for non-curse. You could if you wanted start your first combat with minor curse (by waking up casting a curse focus then refocusing) already running which in that case you can get two combat casts per day, but at that point your trading a cursebound focus spell for a normal one.

This paradigm shifts a lot once you get the major curse upgrade (along with refocus 2 points). Because of the stupefied tag on the major curse, most combats you probably won't want to go all the way, this frees one of your per combat focus points up for non-cursed spells. At that point you probably want to start looking for an easily usable non-oracle focus spell.

Champion:
-Lay on Hands gives me a great use for my huge focus pool without advancing my curse.
-Retributive Strike can suppress the curse on occasion if I didn't strike on my turn.
-Both it and Lay on Hands are great next to a barbarian.
-Champion Resiliency can be a lot of HP.
-Divine ally can get crit specialization.
-Dedication is a bit of a dead feat since I already have heavy armor.

Sorcerer:
-Dangerous sorcery boosts all spell damage.
-Arcane casting takes some pressure off Divine Access for True Strike and Haste, and let's me prioritize getting Bespell Weapon.
-Let's us utilize any arcane scrolls/wands we find.

Mauler:
-Opens up weapon options, which is nice with found loot.
-Get crit spec eventually.
-Opens up various cool combat feat options. Power Attack is cool with True Strike, for example, and who doesn't like Improved Knockdown.

I would probably lean toward Champion.

Champ Dedication + Healing Touch + Champion's reaction seems stronger to me than Sorc Dedication + Basic Spellcasting + Bloodline spell/Dangerous Sorcery.

Mauler + Power Attack + Knockdown(?) seems like 3 feats to get one ability (power attack) and seems less efficient overall.

--------------

However, assuming your campaign runs to higher level, you can just get all three.

Lvl 2: Champ dedication + Oracle Feat
Lvl 4: Healing Touch + Bespell Weapon
Lvl 6: Champ Reaction + Divine Access
Lvl 8: Mauler + Power Attack (Class Feat)
Lvl 9: Multitalented
Lvl 10: Sorc Dedication + Bloodline Spell (Class Feat)
---OR----
Lvl 2: Sorc dedication + Oracle Feat
Lvl 4: Basic Spellcasting + Bespell Weapon
Lvl 6: Bloodline Spell + Divine Access
Lvl 8: Mauler + Power Attack (Class Feat)
Lvl 9: Multitalented
Lvl 10: Champ Dedication + Champion's Reaction (Class Feat)

By Level 10 you'd basically be deciding between basic spellcasting and healing touch.

Extra credit: I'm not sure what weapon I want to rock. I know a reach weapon is great with Retributive Strike and will save me some actions in my already tight turn economy, but part of me reeaaaaally wants that juicy d12 great axe for weapon surging.

Reach would probably be better, but if you want a D12 weapon, I would probably go Bastard Sword. That'll give you the freedom to release your grip to use wands/scrolls/staff and still be able to strike with one hand.

-------------

Another option is dual weapon warrior, it's one of the best bang for your buck dedications. You could use a bastard sword + gauntlet, start battle two-handed for D12 single strikes, then when you get a good spot release grip and double slice. Double slice would also double dip on your status bonus damage. You'll also eventually get some good third action options when you do tip over into major curse with two-weapon flurry and flensing slice

I would say they don't actually see you when you go invisible.

How I would rule it: A copy of you appears, they no longer see you, they see the copy, you go invisible and are now undetected, the copy falls down dead.

I've already clarified that you, the PC are not making a Strike with a Spiritual Weapon. Please stop ignoring the line stating that the Strikes are Melee Spell Attacks.

You Sustain the Spell.
The Weapon does the Strike.
The Strike is a Melee Spell Attack.

How is this YOU Striking in any way? Again, if it were YOU Striking, it would use your Melee attack bonus, which could very well be +0 if your deity was using a weapon you weren't proficient in. But that's obviously not what happens, you use your Spellcasting modifier.

Because it's a Spell Attack.

How is this YOU Striking in any way?

Because that's what the spell says?

It is written as: "YOU move the weapon ... and Strike with it."

It is not written as: "You move the weapon ... and IT strikes"

Written without the move clause and the it pronoun the spell reads as: "Each time you Sustain the Spell, you can Strike with the spiritual weapon"

Again, if it were YOU Striking, it would use your Melee attack bonus, which could very well be +0 if your deity was using a weapon you weren't proficient in.

Normally that would be the case. But in this instance it uses your spell attack because as you said, the Strike is a melee spell attack. It's still a Strike though. Saying that the Strike is a melee spell attack doesn't magically make it not a Strike.

Let's say there was a sign posted (or a curse) that says "NO DOGS ALLOWED" and you had a spell called "Spiritual Doggo"

And the spell says "Summon a magical dog next to you, this dog is a pet" You couldn't tell the angry groundskeeper, no it's not a dog, it's a pet.

(can't wait for the unchained book that adds Curse of the Angry Groundskeeper)

Spiritual Weapon is explicitly a Spell Attack, not a Strike. It's not relevant to this discussion.

Knockdown is very relevant though, and as I just mentioned I would have them make the flat check for the Skill check if the Martial Ancestor were in control.

The spell says you Strike with it. It even capitalizes the word Strike.

I would say it's a Strike that uses your melee spell attack

Now I'm just envisioning a scenario where a BBEG immortal witch petrifies a barbarian. Five thousand years pass and the immortal witch has had a change of heart and is trying to mend the evils he has caused.

Goes back to the barbarian floating in space now, Unpetrifies him and the barbarian going "Quick while he is still distracted from my last attack! Furious Grab!"

Automatic success

Well most battle oracles I've seen can use spiritual weapon strikes to suffice for their curse. So I think since you're striking then it would trigger non-martial's flat checks. The first turn you cast it, you would be casting a spell and striking so it would trigger non-martial and non-caster flat checks.

Essentially you shouldn't have spiritual weapon in your repertoire if you're an ancestors oracle.

Just like you probably shouldn't pick up the knockdown feat from mauler since it would trigger the flat check regardless of which ancestor you have up.

... so the GM no longer has to keep track of the moon to see if you get your +1 damage to people named Carl during a waxing moon.

Well damn. That ruins my entire build

This has been brought up previously and at least specifically with horse has been flagged for errata to specify strike instead of attack

If you could voluntarily fail a saving throw then there's nothing preventing you from making the saving throw text of No Cause for Alarm completely pointless.

IMO unless something says you can voluntarily fail (or crit fail) then you can't

There's nothing that isn't improved by a preceding Bon Mot.

Doubly so if Bon Mot has no mechanical effect.

Bon Mot -> Fireball
Bon Mot -> Power Attack

Bon Mot -> run the hell away

Is my personal favorite

Ellias Aubec wrote:

As for him saying that the pathbuilder app said he could pick primal spells, that might be correct. Spells can be on multiple lists, so those spells could be both on the divine and primal lists.

Like most good character builder apps, pathbuilder also allows you to consciously break the rules in several places. It is NOT the job of an App to enforce the rules (although it should definitely inform you when you do something illegal)

To tag onto this, when you go to the spells section of Pathbuilder, you can select the tab for any of the spell lists regardless of your spell class. By his argument, every spellcaster has access to every spell.

(I suspect it's this way so you don't have to jump through hoops if you have an ability like the sorcerer, cleric, bard, oracle etc does to grab a spell not on your spell list)

Drakantr wrote:

Disturbing Knowledge is rated as blue and 2 stars simutaneously. Which one is it exactly?

2 star. It is a novel ability but at two actions it is just not work doing much. Ordinary Demoralize is just better.

Not disagreeing, but once you get Legendary Occult, it becomes a resourceless game-changer to rival scare to death. The master version is pretty lacking though. I'd probably only really consider it for an investigator who often needs something other than attack to do depending on his roll (and has plenty of extra skill feats).

Squiggit wrote:

Professional sports seems like the worst possible example to bring up for the argument of unshakable RAW, given the complete ubiquitousness of spectators, commentators, players and referees arguing over penalty calls or non-calls or dozens of other rules nuances is across pretty much every kind of sport there is.

this made me laugh, out loud, literally

but I’m always amused when a straight forward analogy is twisted into some weird bananas to wing nuts comparison

is anyone arguing what the effect is when a runner steps out of bounds?
no, everyone agrees what that result is
do people say ‘was not out!’, ‘was too!’, ‘was not!’
yeah, sure
but do these boisterous spectators have any effect on the result?
no, of course not
they’re jus jibbering
which, as we all know, is why the signal:noise ratio is so degraded

doesn’t change the fact that, for example, the rules are crystal clear on what a fair catch kick is, how it is handled, and how play proceeds if one side exercises that option
and that clarity is irrelevant of whether anyone watchin likes that rule or not

Pitchers get scouting reports on how individual Umpires call balls and strikes which lets them know how conservative or aggressive they can be with their pitches during certain counts. The player is literally letting a GM decide on how to arbitrate an official rule.

No, no one is arguing what the effect is when a runner steps out of bounds, but also, no one is arguing about the effect of having an attack roll lower than a targets AC. There is plenty of argument over what constitutes PI, a catch, targeting. What deserves a technical and what is travelling. And guess what, different referees (GMs) call it differently and at different times during the game.

I quickly checked 3 random monsters and saw +2, 0, -2 between their will and perceptions. Has someone got proper numbers on it?

If you follow the creature building rules of GMG, creatures with special senses normally get a perception bonus when compared to will.

I searched AoN for "darkvision" and clicked 50 random entries. 66% (33) creatures with higher perception than will, 22% (11) creatures with equal and 12% (6) with lower perception than will. Of course since there is like 700 creatures with darkvision, these numbers could easily be off one way or another.

From a cursory glance, Creatures with two forms of vision/sense like Purrodaemon's seemed to stack the bonuses, unintelligent creatures like beasts and plants tended to have an equal will/perception (like Ahuizotl)

So it seems that most creatures generally follow the guidelines in the GMG and for the most part, targeting will is either a gain or break even.

Also, is Giant Jellyfish a missprint? there's no way theres a CR7 with only +1 Will, anybody got the book handy?

An ancestry feat that only protects the actor from having to use another action to move away from a target upon a critical failure seems rather...well horrible. I cannot imagine that was the intent with design.

I mean, there are plenty of baddish feats, so the argument of "I think it's bad therefore it's not that way" doesn't really hold a lot of merit.

Besides, thats not what it "only" does. It also allows you to target will instead of perception. Since monsters with special senses normally get a higher Perc DC than Will DC it also gives you a hidden bonus to land.

Other niche uses is it allowing a caster to get flatfooted bonus with their spiritual weapon (or similar spells), and giving Fencer Swashbucklers a ranged option for Panache gain.

I mean, by their logic, flurry of blows itself should take 3 actions... One action for flurry then two for strikes...

Beneficial spells like heal also automatically hit but can fail because of concealment

Garulo wrote:

Take the witch: The familiar with a couple extra abilities is one of those choices which REQUIRE a GMs assistance to be useful.

False. Familiar Refocus, Cantrip Expansion, Spell Battery, Skilled (which allows Aid), Vallet, etc. are all demonstrably valuable and require 0 assistance from the GM.

I don't think skilled allows Aid. Unless I'm missing something about witches in particular (I might be. Haven't yet played one), but familiars are Minions so don't get reactions unless explicitly given to them by a feat/ability

Why do you rate Antimagic Field as more useful for divine spellcasters than arcane/occult?

The Scoundrel would have strictly fewer Legendary skills than the skilled Swashbuckler with the Acrobat dedication on 15th and 16th level.

Yes. I do find this problematic.

And then the rogue would have equal or greater past that...

ANY class right now that takes the Acrobat dedication will have more Master skills at 7 and more Legendary skills at 15 than a base rogue/investigator.

You're not making a base class to base class comparison. You're making a base class to base class + Archetype comparison.

It's like complaining that an Investigator + Mauler gets access to Power Attack while a Ranger doesn't.

"New Focus Spell = +1 Focus Point, to a max of three" needs to be the default across the board. The exceptions are ludicrous and only serve to create confusion.

(I am playing a monk 5/MCD champion in PFS. At 4th level, he picked up Healing Touch, which gave him a Focus Pool of 1. At 5th, he picked up Ki Strike via Natural Ambition, increasing his Focus Pool to 2. However, had he done things in the reverse order, he would have only 1 FP. This is not good game design.)

That isn't true. check page 302 side panel "Focus Points from Multiple Sources" (CRB)

If you have multiple abilities that give you a focus pool, each one adds 1 Focus Point to your pool.

For instance, if you were a cleric with the Domain Initiate feat, you would have a pool with 1 Focus Point. Let’s say you then took the champion multiclass archetype and the Healing Touch feat. Normally, this feat would give you a focus pool. Since you already have one, it instead increases your existing pool’s capacity by 1.

The book even uses the exact MC feat you're talking about

I mean page 5 of the beastiary says:

"A creature always has the requisite proficiency ranks or other abilities required to use what’s listed in its stat block."

So I think a Naga would have the ability to use somatic components for it's spells.

So I'm thinking of picking up Multilingual next level up. What would be good languages to pick up to help in bon moting the enemy.

The campaign is more of a golarian globe-trotting adventure than a focused specific setting/enemy campaign.

I mean in that exact same entry

"The first thing that comes to mind when most think of trolls is the creatures’ power of bodily regeneration. So potent is this regeneration that the only way to overcome it is to exploit the troll’s vulnerability to acid and fire. It is not enough to slay the troll with caustic or flaming weapons, though—even the smallest scrap of a troll’s flesh can regenerate into a full-size troll given enough time. The only sure way to eradicate a troll menace is to burn the monster’s entire body until nothing remains."

SuperBidi wrote:

I must admit I don't understand the concept of bludgeoning firearms (outside blunderbuss). Are you shooting canonballs?

I think it is meant to be the sheer kick. A bullet transfers a ton of kinetic force into the target in a way that an arrow doesn't. That's why people can get knocked back when a bullet hits them. Particularly when the bullet is stopped by something like a bullet proof vest or gets lodged in the body.

Probably why having it deal both types of damage made sense. But at the end of the day it is all just physical trauma.

Except... not really. People get knocked back by bullets because they're reacting to getting shot. In the same way if you accidentally touching a hot stove with your hand causes you to fling your hand away. I wouldn't call the damage from touching a stove 1d4 Fire (Versatile B).

Bullet-proof vests operate by distributing the energy of bullet. The vest essentially converts the piercing damage into bludgeoning damage which in turn makes the bullet do negligible damage.

A bullet having enough kick to knock someone back would mean that firing the gun itself would knock the shooter back.

So i agree that Versatile trait makes no sense in the fact that it shouldn't have it all.

I mean they will know how to use it. They can still make attacks with one, so triggers won't be too hard for them.

They just won't be able hit the broadside of a barn with them.

Edit: Actually, assuming AC of 10 they will probably be able to hit a barn 60-80% of the time.

I mean there's only like 6 weapons with party trait at all. So any feat that requires it is going to be necessarily narrow.

Where are you getting those level 1 class feats in your builds?

Yes, but what exactly would be the point? As NECR0G1ANT and I both pointed out, there's no reason for the extra rolls whatsoever. It's literally wasting everyone's time and energy on rolls that don't matter.

I feel like there's some disconnect that's preventing me from getting your grievance.

You're doing two things which requires two rolls. You're rolling to perform the Avoid Notice exploration activity and then when combat starts you're rolling for initiative.

It's the same as if you rolled to perform the Search activity or the Investigate activity then rolled for initiative when combat starts.

The only difference is that Avoid Notice lets you substitute your stealth bonus instead of perception for the initiative roll.

I mean which roll would you want to get rid of?

If you got rid of the avoid notice roll then the GM would be rolling for every NPC you walk by to spot you (which to me sounds like a lot of superfluous rolls).

If you got rid of the initiative roll then your giving a massive informational advantage to the PCs since they can know well in advance expected turn order. I mean look at the Battle Planner feat and how many hoops you have to jump through to get advanced knowledge on initiative.

AVOID NOTICE

(Exploration)
You attempt a Stealth check to avoid notice while traveling at half speed. If you have the Swift Sneak feat, you can move at full Speed rather than half, but you still can’t use another exploration activity while you do so. If you have the Legendary Sneak feat, you can move at full Speed and use a second exploration activity. If you’re Avoiding Notice at the start of an encounter, you usually roll a Stealth check instead of a Perception check both to determine your initiative and to see if the enemies notice you (based on their Perception DCs, as normal for Sneak, regardless of their initiative check results).

Reading that, I would say that you roll the stealth check upon declaring your exploration activity (and move half speed).

Then if combat happens and your Avoiding Notice you roll a stealth initiative roll.

also:

Anyone who’s Avoiding Notice should attempt a Stealth check for their initiative. All the normal bonuses and penalties apply, including any bonus for having cover. You can give them the option to roll Perception instead, but if they do they forsake their Stealth and are definitely going to be detected.

Stack wrote:

Wow. Totally botched my reading check.

Should have looked twice; +2 to hit would be unusual in this system.

Hunter's Aim, ranger feat 2nd level: "On this Strike, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to the attack roll".

Using two actions to get +2 hit to one strike is a lot different than a blanket +2 hit

Acrobat archetype lets you use acrobatics in place of athletics for a trip attack at level 10. But you can only do it once a minute and you have to have already succeeded at a tumble through.

Paizo obviously doesn't want at will dex for maneuvers.

Good evening everyone, lately I’ve had a bit of a conundrum when figuring out how to deal with my party’s monks. To preface, I have a party of 7 level 11 adventurers. 3 members of the party are monks of various types. 1 is focused on archery, 1 is focused on control, and 1 is more of a generalist.

I am having trouble building adequately challenging combat encounters for the party. In more cases than not, the monks, especially the archer, waltz through combat with ease, no matter what I throw at them.

Since this seems to be applying just to the three monks, each with different builds, then I suspect as others have stated that Flurry of Blows is being incorrectly used. You can only use one Flourish ability a turn and it applies MAP as normal.

For example, tonight's session had two of the three monks facing off against a Jotunn Troll (level 15). In about 3-4 rounds of combat, the two monks and the sorcerer (who missed every time when trying to hit) killed it without much issue. They took some damage in return, but overall they did not really have a problem.

So at level 11, assuming the monks have a +5 from their attack score, they should be rolling a +22 (+5 dex/str, +15 expert prof, +2 weapon potency) for their first strike. This will drop to +18 for any of the monks attacking with an agile fist or +17 for nonagile and the archer. Then any strikes following the flurry of blows will drop to +14 for agile and +12 for the archer/nonagile.

The Jotund Troll has a 35 AC, so the first attack roll needs to be 13 or higher to hit, the second roll needs to 17 for agile or 18 for nonagile and any further hits would have to be a nat 20 to hit. So you're looking at a 60% chance to miss for the first hit, an 80 or 85% chance to miss with the second strike and a 95% miss chance on any follow up attacks.

Let's assume the monks have greater striking runes on a d8 weapon with two of the elemental weapon mods one of which is flaming for the weakness. A strike is doing ~ 3d8+6 + 2d6 + 10 Weakness (which only applies once during a flurry of blows), using those hit chances and damage, your expected damage per round is going to be sub 30.

I just don't see how two monks could take him out in 3-4 rounds unless they rolled a bunch of nat 20's.

Later in the session, the archer monk did a flurry of bows with explosive arrows and caused around 430 points of damage to four creatures with a single action.

So before we get to that damage, explosive ammunition requires an interact action to activate, So it would have had to be two actions to activate and then one action to Flurry of Blows so it would be an entire turn, not just a single action.

Also that damage seems really high. I'm going to assume it's more trolls and they have weakness 10 fire. 6d6 is an average of 21 damage. So assuming all four creatures each failed twice, thats (21 + 10 weak)*4*2 damage or 248 damage. If your including the bow strikes as well, that will bring the average damage up to 320ish. That's a lot of better than average dice rolls to push it up another 130 damage.

And that's assuming weakness 10 and they all fail their reflex DC25 saves. A CR8 two-headed troll (+15 ref) would have to roll less than a 10 to fail, so worse than a coin flip chance eight times.

Afterwards, the other monk grabbed the level 15 caster boss they were fighting and prevented him from casting at all. They proceeded to waltz through what I had intended as a boss encounter as if it was nothing.

So grabbed doesn't prevent casting completely, it imposes a flat DC5 check to use any manipulate action (ie any somatic/material spells), so the Caster would have an 80% chance to get their spell off.

Unless you crit on the grapple of course. Looking at the saving throw table for creatures, if your caster had a low saving throw bonus for fort then he would be at a DC33 Fort. So assuming +5 str, master prof, and a +2 item bonus to athletics, you're looking at a +24 athletics roll. So the monk would succeed and grapple on a 9 or better and crit succeed and restrain on a 19 or better. And of course he would have to keep at the successes turn after turn to maintain it.

I 100% agree that anyone who does not meet the requirements of "Identifying Spells" CRB pg 305 does not know that Charm was cast. (Unless the target gets a critical success on their save, which invokes the spell specific entry that they know there was an attempt to charm them.) "Critical Success The target is unaffected and aware you tried to charm it."

However what has been presented to the party are statements that they do not know that "the spell" was cast, and statements that they do not know that "a spell" was cast. The former falls under my previous paragraph, since noone was able to identify the spell as it was cast, the only person that knows charm was cast is the wizard that cast it.

The later is where I have issue/concern. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in Charm that indicates there is anyone in sight of the caster that would be unaware that a spell is being cast at all.

From page 302:

When you Cast a Spell, your spellcasting creates obvious visual manifestations of the gathering magic, although feats such as Conceal Spell and Melodious Spell can help hide such manifestations or otherwise prevent observers from noticing that you are casting.

I think it's pretty cut and dry. Everyone's character knows that a spell was cast, but only the caster's character knows what was cast in this instance.

HumbleGamer wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

No. Only construct and undead give specific resistances and immunities now. Everything else is a suggestion.

I read that clause differently than you.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=50

Quote:

Most are able to use a breath weapon and are immune to sleep and paralysis.

Which means that you are likely to find most of the dragon type creatures immune to sleep and paralysis.

And there's nothing inthe eidolon description, apart the fact it gets a creature trait depends its own kind, that says that given the dragon trait the creature gains immunity to sleep and paralysis.

For example, a Wyvern, as well as a river drake, is immune to paralysis effects, but not to sleep effect.

Already read the trait. It says most have breath weapons (meaning some) and are immune to paralysis and sleep (all). There is no qualifier on the second part.

I'm not going to debate you. The second part of the sentence is not qualified like the first.

Just like all elementals do not need to breathe.

That sentence is a simple sentence with a single subject and compound predicate. The subject in this case is the pronoun "Most" with it doing both of the verb phrases.

For it to be as you describe it would have to be a compound sentence and look like:

Most are able to use a breath weapon, and all are immune to sleep and paralysis.

As for the actual root of the argument of whether a player acquiring the trait should get something like those bonuses, I really don't have a dog in the fight.

So as others have said and I'll reiterate, it's your table, as long as you and your players are having fun, there's no real "wrong" way to play.

With that said, I ran into a similar issue with my games but I liked the idea of misidentifying items to still be a thing. So the way I've been running it is have one roll at the beginning of the session or just as they enter a dungeon.

On a crit success they identify everything,
Success they identify ~2/3 of the loot,
Failure, they identify ~1/3 of the loot
and Crit Fail, same as failure except they misidentify one piece of loot.

This also gives me time to think up a good misidentification instead of floundering on the spot ("Ummm... that item I just described as a scarf is actually... a Demon Mask... I swear I didnt just make that up)

Then anything they haven't identified, I assume they "take 20" while camping for the night and tell them the remaining item during their daily preparation.

My first game caster experience was hitting a pair of zombies with burning hands, they both roll nat 1s! Woo, double crits, neither of them drop though. Then a martial character walks over to two fresh zombies, hits each of them and drops them in one swing each, with just normal hits. Yaaay, spellcasting is so awesome.

Well, zombies have weakness to slashing so they would probably have an advantage. Assuming they were shamblers with 20 HP and Weakness 5 Slashing, He/she would have had to roll an 11 on his d12 greatsword twice to kill both zombies assuming he has 18 strength and no other damage increase (which if he did would have required some additional setup like an action for a barb rage etc)

If you had swapped out those shamblers for spider swarms the perception would probably be completely flipped.

I don't see why not. There's no either/or clause, and they even happen at different points (wizard adds charges when she prepares while sorcerer uses the charges during activation) so there's not even a timing clash

I've been solo healing as an angelic sorcerer and it's been going fine. Just make sure to have a couple condition scrolls until you hit level 8 and then you can invest in a greater healing staff to cover most of the conditions besides curses

And yes for martial Legendary is the best, Master is okay, and Expert is bad. But guess what? It works the same way for casters. Yet martials are able to get Master spellcasting, but it is physically impossible for casters to get Master in martial things.

Except it doesn't work the same way. Every caster gets Legendary spellcasting. Legendary is baseline for casters.

Only one martial gets Legendary weapons. Master is baseline for martials.

That's why Caster/Martial gives Tier-1 weapon proficiency and Martial/Caster also gives Tier-1 caster proficiency

Yes, I’m talking about fighter, who is supposed to be able to hit stuff reliably. Yet the fighter archetype doesn’t increase your ability to hit reliably.

If we waved a magic wand and made you level 10 slot Wish spell a reality.

Then we'd have posts in this forum titled:

The Problem with Archetypes

If someone starts wizard and puts a couple feats in fighter archetype then he will hit just as well as my ranger/barbarian does.

Archetypes shouldn't invalidate my whole class

A fighter/wizard can eventually increase their spell proficiency to master.

A wizard/fighter can never increase their weapon proficiency beyond that provided by the base class.

The discrepancy between the two is my problem.

A Martial/Caster can eventually get their spell proficiency to one tier less a base caster.

A Caster/Martial will eventually get their weapon proficiency to one tier less than a martial (besides Fighter)

Yeah it would be a dead feat. If it's PFS your only option is to choose a different background.

If it's not PFS and the background fits your character so much that you couldn't imagine it being different, like maybe a Forensic Medicine Investigator with the field medic background, then work with your GM.

Backgrounds are probably the easiest thing to homebrew since they have such clearly defined guidelines.

Your problem isn't with archetypes. It's with the fact that Pathfinder is a class based system.

As for the "go martial instead", potentially, but then you'd probably be best going Ranger.

That way you can pick up Focus Spells, extra attacks, etc.

The issue is being able to reliably trigger both Incendiary Aura and Bespell Weapon.

If you go Ranger though, it puts Bespell Weapon out of reach until level 8, and you'd have to spend 4 of your Class Feats on Oracle (unless you want to go Elf).

EDIT: On second look, maybe you can't pick Blind-Fight and have this work, as True Strike is worded similarly.

EDIT 2: Does Eldritch Shot qualify given how the Moderate Curse is worded:

Quote:

however, when casting a fire spell, you automatically succeed at the

...

For Eldritch Shot, since it's not actually using the cast a spell action I would say probably not, but I could probably be persuaded the other way if I was GMing.

For martials, you could go monk and use their fire attack stance to trigger it at will without having to try for bespell weapon shenanigans. And like I said before just plop a Flaming Rune in your weapon.

Also, if you take the Oracle dedication instead of the class, you only ever recieve the minor curse. If you progress past that you just become flat-footed.