Search Posts
Our new kickstarter is live. Have a look. It's the continuation of our adventure path for the Andror Campaign Setting (or wherever you'd like to drop the adventures). You can see a preview of Book #1 on DTRPG: Portal to Andror. All of our products come complete with Foundry VTT support. Thanks for your support, -AA
Thank you to everyone who has posted during rules discussions and contributed with interesting questions and ideas. I created a $10 off coupon for this adventure pack. It's good for the first five purchases. Please consider a review (especially if you like it): Portal to Andror $2.95
of P2, steals abilities from other classes, and adds those abilities in better forms. There are no restrictions on all its whack mechanics, and I can't understand how it was released by Paizo. - Esoteric Lore is an uber lore, but unlike Bardic Lore or the Loremaster, it auto-scales at the minimum level. The other lores cap at expert when you've spent 4 skill increases to reach legendary at 15th. It's also Charisma based?!? What sense does that make? Why does Charisma have anything to do with knowing things? 1 feat let's you apply it to any topic at a -2, but the accelerated, free skill increases nullify and blow past that compared to Bardic/Loremaster. Further, those other lores are Int-based. Thaum's class stat is Cha, so this is pretty much assured to be maxxed. There's another thread arguing that this is required for the Exploit Vuln shtick, but that grants bonus damage even on a fail, so why does lore have to break in favor of this 1 class?
I'm late to the game. Yes, I'm just reading the class now to help build a 10th level replacement character. Scrolls are dirt cheap at this level. Thaum has a bow in one hand along with a scroll of some debuff like Slow. In free hand is a Sure Strike scroll.
It looks fun as heck to do some combination of the above, but it ignores and rewrites basic mechanics and feats in order to advantage the Thaumaturge more than other classes. It's on a full martial chassis that automatically grants Master spellcasting (L1 scroll feat) with no feat investment beyond that and with the class stat also being the spellcasting stat. I rarely take the time to post something this critical. I'm truly a Paizo fan and don't enjoy casting shade. Thaumaturge looks like a third party class more than a Paizo level class, what am I missing?
If you are looking for a different setting, have a look at the Andror Campaign Setting. We just released an adventure 5-pack on drivethrurpg. It's a sandbox choose your own path set in the city of Aiunteth that takes your party to Level 3. It's the first pack in a path to that goes to Level 20. Foundry VTT is included in the price. The campaign setting also comes with free Foundry modules.
I don't want to come to the forums anymore, because there's so much remaster discussion ongoing. I heard so many awesome things coming, I'm too excited now. The best iteration of the game to date is getting better. There's way more goodness coming than I expected in my wildest dreams. It's overwhelmingly positive, and it says incredible things about Paizo recognizing its ability to change in this tumultuous moment. I just want to send my money and get my pdfs, and I want it now. The wait for the remaster is killing me. Also, thanks, WotC!!! None of this would have been possible without you.
There's currently no errata. Targets 1 lock, or a door or container with a latch CRB wrote: Assuming the target is not barred or locked in some additional way, you can unlock and open it with an Interact action during which you touch the target. You can cast it on a locked door and automatically open it with a touch. Merry Xmas!
I've searched the errata and found no mention, but please direct me to anything that updates this L2 Alchemist feat: Revivifying Mutagen
Mutagen level progression is Lesser (L1), Moderate (L3), Greater (L11).
This means your investment in the L2 feat doesn't scale until 9 levels later. Does anyone have an errata that updates this? I think the sensible option in this case is 1d6 per 2 class levels instead for the moderate or a flat 2d6 at L4. How are people running the feat in their groups?
Overall 3/5
I've been anticipating Kingmaker 2E eagerly and looking for a group to play it with, so when I got my hands on the Player's Guide, I devoured it, twice, and then some more. Here's how it looks. Concept 5/5
As for the concept, it's super cool. Paizo isn't the first to expand the game's ruleset into dominion management, but they hit the sweet spot for a campaign that provides rules for the play style. Carve out my own kingdom with my friends? Run it the way we want? Politics, resource management, AND monster bashing? Awesomeness! Mechanics 4/5
- Suggested Character Options: This is a bit of a head scratcher. I get the idea: here's what will or won't work in this campaign, or put another way, here's what's easiest to run. I don't think it succeeds very well. Why is there an Alignments column if you recommend "Any" and don't recommend "-"? Why is there a Not Recommended Row if nothing isn't recommended against except Cleric of a deity that isn't specified or hinted at? The format is poor. - Prominent Citizens: I'm torn on these. They are information on an NPC but specifically a quest NPC. The details can be deep, and then the quest is described, sometimes in detail along with motivations, triggers, and reactions. If they are presented as, "Here's what you know about these NPCs based on rumor, but it may not be true," then that's a cool angle. I like the idea of my character recognizing people and having a prejudged opinion formed about them. I don't understand why any quest information would be shared here though other than the basic hook. I can see that being offputting to GMs or wading into spoiler info for players. I'm also open to the idea of it being a bit gamier than usual in some ways, so again torn on these. - Backgrounds: There could have been more effort put into these. It's a player's campaign guide, and there are only 7. Cartography 0/5
The maps are so bad, I had to write this review. I can't see myself playing the AP until someone in the community releases their own decent version. Paizo!? Dang, girl.
The Andror Campaign Setting just dropped on DriveThruRPG on schedule! Digital Packages:
We are expecting the hardcover print copies to also be available in June. They come with the PDFs free, so if you bought the digital package early, you can upgrade to print with an automatic discount. Thanks to everyone for their support and patronage in helping us to deliver to this point. Please catch up with us on our website or twitter. Sincerely, AA Salati & the SVD team Andror is a campaign setting for P2 stylized after Game of Thrones meets Stargate. Look for our Adventure Pack Kickstarter coming next.
Power is balanced in P2 better than in past versions. It's one of the top things I like about the game along with the action economy and archetyping. Archetyping from a non-caster base class to pick up casting has a nice balance. You're a class level and spell level behind. That feels fair. You can't steal top level spellcasting capabilities from another class. If I'm a Fighter and want to cast Lightning Bolt, that's available. I won't get the spell until I'm L8 (vs L5 for a Wizard or a Druid), and even then it will only be as powerful as a L5 spell-caster's. Is it still worth it? Depends on you. You get to force a reflex save instead of an attack roll, you get range and multiple targets, and you might trigger a weakness. You might feel so cool doing it that it doesn't matter. Either way, it's not your main class feature. For a Fighter, it's striking and maneuvers. The balance feels right here. Cantrips don't put you any levels behind a full spell-caster. They scale automatically regardless of your base class. A Fighter can pick up Electric Arc or another cantrip for an easy ranged attack. If they have a high secondary casting stat, they'll only be a little behind on effect. Additionally, cantrips are at least a level behind a spell slot's power, so you're not able to cast spells better than a full spell-caster. Focus Spells scale like cantrips. They're also behind the power of a top spell slot. If a non-caster dips into a class for a focus spell, they still can't match the same class level caster's top spell slot capabilities. I think cantrips and focus spells work well in this regard. The balance is fine. As long as the focus spell or cantrip doesn't match the power of a top spell slot, balance is maintained. An example of a violation of this can be demonstrated with Lightning Bolt. It's an L3 spell. If we offered Lightning Bolt as a focus spell as an L6 feat, we've now violated the limits of basic archetype spell-casting which grants L3 spells at class level 8. Further, the spell automatically heightens every +1 spell level to do just as much damage as a full spell-caster. It's very low investment. Your spell DC will be behind a full caster's, but you're casting the same top level spell at the same effect. You're also casting it every battle. That's clearly too much. It's a violation of the balance of the focus spell mechanic. Other archetype abilities don't offer anything on par with this from a spell-casting perspective. Wild Shape is Broken
However, it's violating the standard focus spell limits. It's not behind a top spell slot. It is a top spell slot. It can be cast every 10 minutes, and it's actually more versatile than any one battle form spell, because you can take feats to use it dynamically as Insect Form and more, not just Animal Form and Pest Form. Where it's really broken is in the Druid Archetype. Wild Shape is available as an L4 feat. That means a martial can pick up the L2 Animal Form battle form spell two levels before being able to cast the spell. They can cast it every battle, and it auto-heightens to always be just as powerful as a base class Druid. Not only that, because their natural unarmed attack modifier will always be higher than what the spell offers, they also get a +2 status bonus to hit. There have been many threads discussing whether one damage bonus or another applies in battle forms. We've been hung up on the RAW interpretations. We really get into that in this community, and although I lean more towards doing whatever's right for the table or fun or RAI, I am just as deeply invested in interpreting the RAW. Personally, I've been way off on this one, and the reason is that Wild Shape is flat out broken. It probably shouldn't exist even for the Druid (debatable), but it absolutely shouldn't be available in its current form to the Druid archetype. There's no precedent for this power level. You could build a Fighter who invests in nothing but handwraps, no striking runes or magic armor needed, and uses battle forms with the highest martial attack and +2 for free. You can abuse this with any martial to give yourself the unlimited top spell slot capabilities of a Druid to shapechange, and there's no spell DC involved. So, you are not behind the full spell-caster in any regard. The real question isn't whether it's RAW to allow combat feats, sneak attack, athletics maneuvers, or other combat multipliers on top of battle forms. Although those are valid discussions, I think the real question is how Paizo approved this. I think shapechanging is super cool. It's an awesome class ability. It's awesome as a spell, but it's not balanced as a focus spell that's more powerful than a top spell slot.
Update #12 is posted. This one continues our Character Creation series and provides the final preview of our Ancestry options! This is the final weekend of our Kickstarter. If you'd like to follow the setting beyond Kickstarter, please join our: Andror Campaign Setting Mailing List Thanks for everyone who followed and supported! We are still targeting our release on drivethrurpg in June 2022. -AA Salati
I love the high fantasy genre. Being separated from technology and living in a time with the old ways and magic is a fantasy for me. The arquebus made a debut in 2nd edition D&D, and I recall thinking the concept was interesting. However, I was never interested in adding guns into my fantasy genre. When I heard about them for Pathfinder, it was still a no for me. No, I don't even want to think about what that means for the game world. I just want to stick to my high fantasy fantasy. Funny though, my campaign entered an alternate timeline where I had a bizarre goblin community (think Dragonbone Chair trilogy goblins) using them, and my players armed up. So as much as I considered myself a no-guns, high fantasy only gamer, perhaps my stance had room for openings. Fast forward to P2 today, and I'm in a new group playing a RotR conversion. Someone rolled up a shoony gunslinger, and I'm wondering how I'll reconcile this double slap in the face to my precious genre. I'm not a fan of animal-headed ancestries. They feel low effort from a creativity standpoint: Here's a new ancestry, but instead of a human head, it's a cat's or a dog's or a bird's or a <insert your favorite pet>'s head. Ok, whatever. I get to play instead of GM for once. I'm already stepping outside of my normal magic-using, optimized characters and playing a heavily handicapped martial for a unique roleplaying challenge. We get through session 0 and session 1, and I didn't have a problem with the guns. I was having too much fun roleplaying, and the shoony's roleplay was great, so what did it matter what ancestry he was using and that he was using guns? Has this changed my mind? No, but it was a reminder to stay open-minded. I probably won't block guns from future campaigns, and I may or may not employ them as GM. I'm going to continue focusing on group fun and relaxing with friends.
Hi, fellow forum folk and Pathfinder 2nd fans, I formed a small publishing company in 2018 to create a classic but modern fantasy setting for Pathfinder. I hope it interests a few of you to share with your circles. It's a large and very complete offering including:
Have a look, and please share if you think anyone you know might be interested. Thank you all for your contributions on this forum. Everyone's debate and rule gnoshing has been helpful since the playtest. Special thanks to Draco18s who reviewed my new classes and offered fantastic feedback on where to edit. There's a digital package with your name on it. Thanks, -AA
The recent wizard niche thread got me thinking about a preconception from P1 I had: Arcane casters have more spells unique to Arcane than any other tradition. I ran the numbers, and it's not true. Here's the breakdown. Exclusive Spells P2 (exported from Nethys, "All" tab is the main sheet, totals at bottom) Spell Tradition - Unique/Total
What does this mean? From a quantity standpoint, Wizards have access to the most spells in their spell list. That's only 14% more than Occult casters and 85% more than Divine casters. Wizards have the least amount of spells unique to the Arcane spell list. That's less than half of Divine and less than a third of Primal. What are their unique spells?
One of those is (S) from an adventure, and five are (U)ncommon. What qualitative insights does this reveal?
Personal Conclusions?
Someone mentioned Occult eating Arcane's lunch in a recent thread. The numbers tend to agree. I still like Wizards. I've gone through all the stages I see repeated in the threads (denial, anger, rationalization, etc.), and I'm fine with the magic nerfs now. I do wish Wizards had more unique spells, better focus spells, and feats worth taking. Anyway, anyone surprised by the spread?
I built a shapeshifter caster and wanted to see which forms were optimal for which level as much as you can tell from the base stats. This isn't to min/max so much as it is to see if there are any major differences by form by level. Certainly, the form options themselves play a huge role in deciding what you polymorph into. Do you need to climb on the ceiling? Fly? See in the dark? Poison, tank, use reach? Those are still individual choices... ...but if you ever wanted to see a comparison L2-5, here you go. (not all spells heighten past 5th, and when you get to L6 Dragon Form, it's too crazy to compare)
I read through character building options on my tablet until I fall asleep at night. I'm always looking for P1 style hacks to explode power or provide cool, unexpected benefits with class and archetype combos. Horses are a clunky accoutrement to try to lug around everywhere adventurers go, so I never paid them much attention. I got pretty excited when I re-read the Horse Animal Companion entry's Support Benefit and finally paid attention to it: Support Benefit:
The description has no requirements although it's a safe assumption you must be mounted on the horse (previous threads concur). What's nuts about this is a lack of restriction on the type of damage other than it must be "an attack." I almost can't believe it and that there's no errata mentioning it. This means it works with Attack trait spells! And spells do a lot of dice! +2 damage per die?!? Just for 1Action commanding your mount to move 10'? This is super awesome for spellcasters. Here are some (ab)uses:
The list goes on. There aren't many Attack trait damage spells, but this is such a huge benefit that it has a significant impact even on ones that do 1d4 per spell level. Let's address the last line of the Support Benefit. I know this will come up:
This is a ruling for a common scenario where the Support Benefit potentially interacts with a jousting weapon and explains how to combine effects. It's not a requirement that your attack use a weapon. Of course, if you read it that way and adamantly interpret that to be the case, that knocks out most spells. I haven't seen this discussed, and I don't mean to say I think this actually "breaks the game." It's just one of the largest, impactful class-archetype combos I've found so far. What do you think? Nuts or silly?
I've gone back and read the previous discussions on what does and doesn't apply to Battle Forms when using something like the Animal Form spell, and I lean on the side of: Abilities that add additional dice or effects work. Examples are Sneak Attack and Fighter's Intimidating Strike. I don't think +1 striking flaming handwraps add their fire damage to something like an Animal Form bite (or any AF attack), because you're not using your gear anymore. I'm not referring to using your attack bonus if higher. I think that's separate. I'm open to changing my mind on this if someone has some references. My question is how feats like Power Attack or Grievous Blow should work if your base attack is two dice like a 2d6 Animal Form bite for example. If you Power Attack at L4, would you do 4d6? Then at L10, 6d6? What are folks opinions on these dice adding scenarios both from items and abilities?
L2 Shape Wood
"You shape the wood into a rough shape of your choice. The shaping power is too crude to produce with intricate parts, fine details, moving pieces, or the like. You cannot use this spell to enhance the value of the wooden object you are shaping." I was imagining the spell for bypassing doors, walls, and other trick plays. However, I just noticed the "unworked" requirement. A piece of wood is worked the moment a tool touches it for any purpose but harvesting it from the tree. I wouldn't count a log worked if it were hacked down with an axe or sawed down. I would count it as worked the moment it is cut into lumber, sanded, or maybe even de-barked. What does that leave? How often do people encounter raw, unworked wood and need to shape it in a way that, as the spell puts it, "cannot... enhance the value of the wooden object you are shaping." Any clever uses, or is this being home ruled to be more lenient on the definition of "unworked?"
Go bomber.
Bird Support Benefit wrote: The bird pecks at your foes’ eyes when you create an opening. Until the start of your next turn, your Strikes that damage a creature that your bird threatens also deal 1d4 persistent bleed damage, and the target is dazzled until it removes the bleed damage. If your bird is nimble or savage, the persistent bleed damage increases to 2d4. Combat: Move your bird into position threatening foes. A 60' fly speed makes this easy to pick your foe. Far Lobber means only a -2 range penalty at 60' if you are really out that far. Throw a bomb with persistent damage (fire or acid). Even if you miss, as long as it isn't a critical miss, you do damage thanks to splash. Thus you meet the requirement of your Bird Support Benefit and automatically do 1d4 bleed damage and dazzle your foe.On a hit, your foe is now: Burning, bleeding, and dazzled. That's almost nonfunctional as the foe scrambles to deal with multiple persistent damage types. If your foe is engaged with an ally, your bird can flank as well. You've only used two actions so far, and the build comes online at L2. How does this sound?
Melee vs. Magic power comparisons have been discussed extensively. From a class building perspective, however, I've noticed a lot more benefits included with some classes. I tried to do a quantitative analysis of a few by comparing features common across each class - core game functionality. This gets wildly more complex the more features you try to quantify, but it's an informative start. I assigned points to the following class functions: HP, Skill Pts, Weapon Pts, Weapon Prof+, Weapon Spec, Armor Pts, Armor Prof+, Save Pts, Save Shifts, Class/Spell DC I started with three classes. Here are the results (google doc):
I'll comment separately, but I'm wondering, "Is this fair?" Fighters don't get spells, so I can understand getting more core benefits, but are the spells worth it? If spells are such a big factor, why do Bards get 50% more core benefits than Wizards? Both are full casters with Legendary spell proficiency.
This class looks like a lot of fun. Make 10 alchemical items every day for free at L1? Make as many as 27 at L5? There is versatility to do some interesting builds here like a poisoner and trap-layer. There are some wicked poisons at low levels, and you can put as many as you like on your ammunition for firing at will. There's healing, buffing, elemental damage + effects, poison, expert weapons at 7th, and you can have max stats for crafting, and not just alchemical crafting but arcane, everything. This class got put down quite a bit, and I dismissed it, too. Now that I've been re-reading it, I see potential for several neat builds. I understand there are areas where the math is not strong, but I also see areas where you can take advantage. The potential to do "magical" effects in higher volumes than primary spellcasters opens the doors for some cool opportunities. The Druid got some love here recently and rightly so. Kudos to the Alchemist, too!
This is bad advice for asking your GM to allow your crossbow ace not to suck. Inspired by the recent heavy crossbow thread. Ask your GM to allow (attempt #1):
Ask your GM to allow (attempt #2):
Step 2:
It's counter-intuitive that a feat removing ranged penalties or adding ranged damage for a Fighter who's constructing their build around archery would not be helpful, but as I was recently building a Fighter archer, that was my conclusion. I'm building around a Composite Longbow (Volley 30'). I know there are scenarios where you can use Point Blank Shot to get +2 damage that may be worth it, but that's not my scenario. Point Blank Shot does one of two things: 1) Remove the within-30' -2 to hit penalty from Volley, or 2) +2 damage on non-Volley attacks. It costs 1 Action to enter the stance. For my build, I could only potentially get benefit from 1) Removing the -2 attack penalty. Now, when I think about how this plays out, I can't see myself ever wasting an action to enter the stance. I would only need it if I want to shoot at a target within 30', but if there's a target that close, I could eliminate the penalty by taking a Stride for 1 action. Not only does that remove the -2 penalty, but it puts me in a safer firing position. I know the argument at this point is, yes but if you invest that 1 action on the Stance, you can fire without the penalty or without moving, and in later rounds, that could be beneficial... except that's not true, because I'll try to Stride to be beyond 30' anyway for safety reasons. Then I think the argument becomes, if you're ever cornered, you're going to be in bad shape. I think that's fair. You can't always win. End rant.
Double Shot wrote:
That's straightforward, Attacks are -2/-2 then -10 if you like. Triple Shot wrote:
The first time I read this I thought, Attacks are -4/-4/-4, but now that I re-read it, it doesn't say that. It doesn't specify whether the -4 is for the third shot after doing your Double Shot -2/-2 and then adding a third at -4, or if all three attacks go to -4. If you read it like "add an additional action to Double Shot," then that says you're doing Double Shot which is -2/-2 and adding a third at -4. If you read it like "add an action to make three" and "the penalty is -4" it could say all three are at -4. I wish it wasn't written this way. Statistically, both feats suck if you plug them into Draco18s' attack routine calculator vs. Exacting Strike, all with a d8 propulsive and calculating a d10 extra on critical (assuming composite longbow). 1) Exacting Strike Fighter L6: 0/-5/-5* (blue)
Obviously 2 > 3, but in every level scenario -4 to +4, the Exacting Strike Fighter outdamages both 2 and 3. Double Shot and Triple Shot are horrible. Exacting Strike works for Melee and Ranged Strikes. Double Shot doesn't work against 1 target, has to be different targets. Double and Triple take two feats and don't surpass the math of Exacting Strike regardless of -2/-2/-4 or -4/-4/-4. So, this is partly a question, how are people reading the Triple Shot sequence? I'm also ranting that Exacting Strike is superior regardless. |