Pumpkinhead11's page

Personally I don't like the choice of Concentrate over Manipulate. I'm fine being in the minority on this opinion, but it's already quite impossible to create a Bloodrager that can do anything other than self-buff or can only use spells in exploration.

Class looks great and the analysis looks very in-depth. Just a bummer it's another caster-ish class that can't mix with Barbarian because of slapping the concentrate tag on everything.

It’s perfectly apt to answering your question. If the Fatal Die isn’t doubled(or halved) then it’s not affected by the penalties. Basically you roll the Fatal die after you’ve calculated all the normal damage for a crit; which means bonuses and penalties.

You do bring up a point that it might be affected if Grasping Reach isn’t considered a penalty; but we have yet to hear what kind of penalty it should be considered. I would lean towards untyped penalty at best, but I’m not looking to answer for anyone else.

Let me put this as essentially as possible, cause I think all this nitty gritty about inferring rules is just obscuring the point.

According to you all, 1000 fatal crits with grasping reach and 1000 fatal crits without grasping reach will average out to the exact same damage. It sure sounds like grasping reach is doing nothing here except giving you reach. It's a relatively minor thing given the obscurity of the feat, but I file "gaining reach with no drawback" under too good to be true, given that the wording of grasping reach pretty much explicitly says that an attack with it is less effective than an attack without it.

By your ruling, fatal crits are equally as effective with or without grasping reach, which means its drawback is not being applied in those instances, even though its benefit is.

And miss me with "but then fatal isn't doing anything" because it's still adding a die.

Actually the example you gave is a hyperbolic one. Not incorrect, but also not a fair one; but i can work with it.

First let’s use 100 Strikes as a baseline.

With 100 Strikes a Fighter will Crit with 30 of them(statistically speaking). This would mean that Grasping Reach die reduction is being applied to 70 Strikes. Well that doesn’t seem like the die reduction is being ignored; it actually seems like it’s working as intended. Oh, that was also the initial Strike; meaning that’s before applying MAP.

So with 100 Strikes at -5 MAP a Fighter will Crit with 5 of them. At MAP -10 this ends up being the same 5%, or 5 Crits, because of the Nat 20. This is also with at level enemies and lower. Once you include higher level enemies and bosses the number of crits will tank even farther down.

So by the time we hit 1000 Crits we have swung somewhere around 3000 - 3500 Strikes at -0 MAP. This is also using Fighter as the assumed class. If we use Barbarian or Ranger, for example, you lower the expected results by and additional 10% at all Strikes(Flurry Hunter’s Edge will indeed fluctuate these numbers a bit).

Mutagens are absolutely great. The biggest thing is to use them to their strength and not to use them around their weakness.

My X-Bow Ranger would always keep about 3 or so of the highest level Quicksilver. A +1 to hit and a +2 to a handful of skills is incredibly underrated. Ranged DPS character 40+ feet away from enemies, that can take advantage of +2 to Stealth and Bonus to Movement for repositioning has always proven beneficial. The hit to HP isn't enough to make a difference unless you want to go a Melee Dex build.

Stone Body synergizes well for Swashbuckler and Monk tank builds or bonus survivability against larger groups of enemies.

Energy is a cheap and an amazing go to for elemental resistance and bonus damage.

Juggernaut scales at later levels to be more Temp HP than from Rage or Spells.

Bestial is good for Athletic Maneuver builds.

Stone Fist. . .

Cognitive for Lore Master/Monster Hunter Ranger or Investigator.

Serene for mage heavy encounters.

Silvertongue for Swashbucklers.

Yeah he does miss a few things that 5e has that would shift the analysis a bit. For example with the pf2e ranger losing more damage going into melee compared to the 5e ranger but a lot of 5e ranger spells only work on ranged weapons, or do something that favours ranged weapons, zephyr strike for example stops opportunity attacks against you which is much more useful for ranged attacks compared to melee ones. So just attacking with the weapons will produce better results for 5e but spellcasting is also standard for rangers in 5e so its feels important to include.

He also misses that his ‘Legolas’ Ranger could trip the wight just fine with assurance and just being Trained in Acrobatics; in spite of having an 8 strength for some reason. He also uses the Precision Hunter’s Edge(which he called the ‘Ranged’ Hunter’s Edge) in his example, but if your player is spamming ‘attack rotations’ then obviously the Flurry Edge will be better;

Turning : +12/ +7/ +2 into +12/ +9/ +6

But apparently pointing that out is considered arguing in bad faith to him.

It sort of seems like some sort of "inventor" or "artificer" is kind of squeezed between "the Alchemist, perhaps with a new research field" and "the ranger who specializes in snares."

I can’t see it as a Research Field while still having it claim to be an Alchemist.

An Artificer would be the best concise way of imagining it before refining the idea further.

Now think whether that needs a full class, an Alchemist Research Field, or could be covered in a Dedication. Or maybe only skill feats & gear.

We have the Swashbuckler which has debilitations and precision damage almost identical to the Rogue with the movement capabilities of the Monk and some Fighter Feats thrown in for good measure. Investigator has the Precision Damage and Skill Feats of a Rogue with the ability to craft some Alchemical items like the Alchemist. Why isn’t that considered as eclipsing said classes? The only answer i can think of is because of Thematics and the Sum of the Class is greater then the individual Features being used.

The ‘Inventions’ could be more impactful and less numerous than Alchemist’s daily crafting. An invention for me could be as simple as creating Cover in an open plain with a Portable Wall; Spawning a turret is the most iconic interpretation of an inventor i have seen; Boxing Glove snares that force movement; or the ability to have some snares re-arm themselves. Put a limit on how many can be active at one time rather than number of uses would seem distinct enough from Alchemist to start from there.

If we get an inventor class, I want golems in some form. Even if it's just "you get an animal companion that's a construct".

I should try finishing the Effigy Master homebrew i was tinkering with. Just need to come up with more ways to distinguish them from every other AC Archetype out there.

Can we all appreciate the Healer’s Blessing change? Base additional healing from 1 to 2. Praise be the even number blessings; begone cursed odd numbers.

Seriously though, this was so satisfying to read. I always found it odd starting off at 1 then scaling by 2 for this particular spell.

Personally it's difficult to be satisfied with Healer's Blessing, which is an opt-in ability, getting buffed; while Angelic Halo, which isn't an opt-in ability, got nerfed hard.

Healing buffs are nice to see though.

there are no inconsistencies though:

any bonuses or penalty to "attack rolls" apply. If you are Blessed, you do get the bonus, since bless gives bonus to "attack rolls".

those are different than bonuses to "ranged attack rolls" though.

That's an assumption since there's no definitive ruling to the contrary.

Matter-of-fact, under attack rolls, it refers to Spell Attacks as a variable weapon for attack rolls.

When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll. Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page.

i get that it may not be as clear, since you obviously read it elsewise, but it makes no mention at all of it counting as a ranged attack roll.

Under the section of spells it clearly states that a Spell Attack roll is like any other attack roll.

A spell attack roll is like other attack rolls, so any bonuses or penalties that apply to all your attack rolls should be included in your calculation.

There's no mention that spells don't gain the bonuses when appropriate. There actually is wording that says they do.

if anything it says that spell attack rolls are a different type of atttack roll and work differently than both ranged and melee attack rolls.

While there are some distinct differences between the rolls, Bonuses and Penalties are called out specifically as not being one of those differences.

also, it's not "assumed" to be differnt.

they are clearly spelled out to be different.

There is no wording stating that a Ranged Attack Roll is default assumed to be a weapon. Ranged Unarmed Attacks are a thing, and was one of the correct interpretations for QS Mutagen. I believe your interpretation would strip Unarmed from qualifying as a default assumption.

That seems to me to not be consistent.

the only way that's possible it would have to have a copletely separate type of attack roll, that's the "ranged spell attack roll that isn't a spell attack roll, nor a ranged atack roll, but the two of them combined"

To be fair, if Spells didn't use the terms Ranged and Melee in their descriptors i would very much agree with you; but Spells do use Ranged and Melee in their descriptors.

since we know, that RAW, Ragned attack rolls are different than spell attack rolls (two different types using 2 different formulas) and the only way that the bonuses would apply it would have to have a 4th type of attack roll that counts as both (while being neither)

If you're going to continue to ignore the two separate and distinct paragraphs that say Spells gain the exact same Bonuses and Penalties as every other Attack Roll then i'm not sure who you're trying to convince.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I made a passing statement that you did not agree with. Cool, to each their own. Your case is flimsy for the very specific reasons that i have stated, and they have not been addressed aside from with more assumptions rather than very specific wording.

I never even found it as that much of an issue. This line of logic actually exists because of how the rules are laid out.

I'm much more interested in continuing on discussing the errata though personally speaking.

No argument that it was not perfectly clear. . .

As someone else said, this is what comes from hard coding your terminology but then not cleaning up terms that can be used in multiple contexts.

I definitely agree with this. Not just in this particular instance either.

There are two specific issues i have with treating Ranged Attacks as weapon-first assumptions. The first is, it's a general interpretation. As Bardarok says, there is no specific wording that excludes the bonus in this instance; it is just assumed that they are exclusive with no bleed-over. Personally, i can not accept a handwaved interpretation as a hard-and-fast ruling; otherwise the rules mean little to nothing from table to table.

The second issue i have, is that, with only an assumption that Ranged Attacks default to Weapon Attacks and an actual rule that states that:

capital letters for emphasis

"Spell attack rolls benefit from ANY BONUSES or PENALTIES to attack rolls. . . but not any special benefits or penalties that apply ONLY to WEAPON or UNARMED attacks."

It states this rule twice in the spells section. This means there is a specific rule that is contradicting a general assumption/interpretation. That's just plain inconsistency if you are correct. Not to mention the rule that states Specific trumps General when rules contradict each other.

I agree with Shroud on this. Ranged Attack Roll is a defined thing, specifically stated to be separate from Spell Attacks.

Mind, I do understand your logic Pumpkin, and WANT to agree, but I think RAW comes down on Shroud's side.

Inevitably that’s just where i disagree; not to say i don’t understand where Shroud is coming from as well, i just find it as more a RAI ruling over a RAW one. In the end this is most likely why the change to QS Mutagen was changed either way, and it did end up in a clear buff for Finesse fighting styles, so it’s not a bad change. I just felt it was enough of one to state the difference.

_______________________

Healer’s Blessing got a tad buff, but Angelic Halo:

Page 403: Angelic halo should scale based on the level of the heal spell, not based on angelic halo's level. Remove the heightened entry and instead, replace the status bonus to healing from the spell with "Allies in your halo’s emanation who are healed by a heal spell gain a status bonus to Hit Points regained equal to double the heal spell’s level."

Angelic Halo just got a straight Nerf. I can understand that they probably didn’t want Halo stacking with Blessing for Uber Healz, but this seems like A really bad choice. I’d prefer they did this to Healer’s Blessing, since Cleric has Divine Font.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

Quicksilver changed from ‘Ranged Attack Rolls’ to ‘Dex-Based Attack Rolls’. Taking away any bonus to Ranged Spell Attacks in place for Finesse fighting styles.

Page 604: Under Companion Items wrote:

replace the third sentence with “Normally these are the only items a companion can use. Other items may qualify, at the GM’s discretion, but an animal can never Activate an Item.” This makes the rules clearer than before, and allows the GM to opt into adding more items.

This is a nice clarification. This was my initial interpretation, but was unsure after multiple readings.

quicksilver didn't apply to spell attacks even before.

"ranged spell attack rolls" aren't "ranged attack rolls"

Quote:

. Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls.

so, a "ranged spell attack" isn't a ranged attack, but a spell attack (done in range).

that's even further clarified in the same page as it goes on how ranged attacks use Dex as it's governing stat and spell attacks use the casting stat.

Hmm. . . I’ll see your general rule interpretation, and raise you three specific rules that state otherwise.

A spell attack roll is like other attack rolls, so any bonuses or penalties that apply to all your attack rolls should be included in your calculation. For instance, the +1 status bonus from the bless spell would benefit your spell ray just like it could an arrow. However, note that the spell attack roll doesn’t gain any bonuses or penalties that apply specifically to weapon attacks or unarmed attacks. The multiple attack penalty applies to spell attacks, so it’s usually a bad idea to cast a spell that has a spell attack roll if you’ve already made an attack that turn.

States Ranged Spell Attack Rolls are considered the same as all other Ranged Attack Rolls for purposes of Bonuses and Penalties; with the exception that the bonus or penalty specifically call out Weapon (See Point Blank Shot Stance as an example)

If you have the ability to cast spells, you’ll have a proficiency rank for your spell attack rolls, so you’ll always add a proficiency bonus. Like your ability modifier, this proficiency rank may vary from one spell to another if you have spells from multiple sources. Spell attack rolls can benefit from circumstance bonuses and status bonuses, though item bonuses to spell attack rolls are rare. Penalties affect spell attack rolls just like any other attack roll—including your multiple attack penalty.

Only states that item bonuses to Spell Attacks are rare, but not non-existent. Also, Spell Attack Rolls would indeed benefit from them.

Some spells require you to succeed at a spell attack roll to affect the target. This is usually because they require you to precisely aim a ray or otherwise make an accurate attack. A spell attack roll is compared to the target’s AC. Spell attack rolls benefit from any bonuses or penalties to attack rolls, including your multiple attack penalty, but not any special benefits or penalties that apply only to weapon or unarmed attacks. Spell attacks don’t deal any damage beyond what’s listed in the spell description.

Stating that Ranged/Melee Spell Attacks are, by the rules, to be considered the same as Ranged/Melee Weapon or Unarmed Attacks, with the exception of more specific requirement/s in the wording. (See Point Blank Shot Stance as an example)

In Conclusion, with Quicksilver previously being ’Ranged Attack Rolls’, and not specifying what kind of Ranged Attack Roll, Ranged Spell Attack Rolls benefited from it 100% via RAW.

Staves: This seemed like an inelegant way to change it. They could have just gotten rid of the paragraph about runes and etchings and just said they work like all other Specific Magic Weapons. It’s also an odd ruling in general personally; so i can only guess they didn’t like the idea of Shifting Staves enough to nix all property runes in general. Though there’s still always Divine Ally for that niche.

Shields: Forge Warden was a good change. Arrow-Catcher was a bad change on a number of levels. It got a HP and Hardness buff, which was good; but the One Minute frequency was a bit of a nerf, and bumping the HP to 60 just further mucks up how they expect shields to work.

Issues like...

...whether or not 4-slot casters get full use out of magical staves.

Not sure how big of an issue this actually was though. It’s possible the surveys say something different, but not many people seemed to assume they worked any different for these classes than for any other spell-slot-casting class. It was also pretty unanimous that everyone was in favor of a clearer understanding one way or the other.

The post said it was addressing the main points/issues, in which it would seem the interpretation issue around Staves wasn’t an intended discussion point of the PT.

Asethe wrote:

The post I referenced for those asking:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/fmateq/can_you_cast_a_1st_le vel_spell_using_a_2nd_level/

I just read that, and I still can't be sure he's addressing the specific scenario at hand (i.e., being able to cast a 1st-level spell by expending a 2nd-level or higher spell slot and gaining absolutely none of the benefits of being heightened, or in other words, being able to downgrade a 2nd-level slot to a 1st-level slot).

In any case, I'm glad you provided the link, but this is not something that should be left to some obscure 3-word reply on an entirely different forum. We've been asking this since P2E launched, and if there is an answer one way or the other, it should be explained exhaustively and then be stickied at the top of the Rules forum, the Advice forum, and the General Discussion forum at bare minimum.

Question: Can you cast a 1st level spell using a 2nd level slot without the benefits?

Reply: Yes you can.

You can't really get confused or find it obscure unless you add context that isn't currently there. The question is very specific and the answer is very direct.

I will agree that searching reddit should not be a common way of finding intended interpretations to otherwise subjective rule interpretations since this is maybe the second time i've heard of this as the designers intent since release. It is at least an insight that will hopefully be remedied much more officially.

____________________________________

About Magus and Staves in general; there's nothing to support Shoudb's interpretation. There's actually evidence to support the opposite in the wording of the Martial Caster feat.

You’ve strengthened your spellcasting to power you in combat.

You gain two 1st-level spell slots, but you can prepare only certain
spells in them: fleet step, jump, mage armor, magic weapon, and
true strike. Automatically add these spells to your spellbook.

When you can cast 4th-level magus spells, the extra slots
increase to 2nd level and you add the spells resist energy,
spider climb, and water breathing. When you can cast 5th-level
magus spells, the extra slots increase to 3rd level and you add
the spells feet to fins and haste. When you can cast 6th-level
magus spells, the extra slots increase to 4th level and you add
the spells fly and freedom of movement.

Specifically when regarding the spells Fleet Step, Magic Weapon and True Strike. There's no wording to suggest that when these spell slots turn into 2nd Level that you can no longer cast those spells just because they are 1st level spells that can not be heightened. This would imply the Player is always assumed to have the capability to cast these spells. This would naturally mean it's also true for grabbing a Staff of Divination and using the Staff to cast True Strike as a 10th level Magus.

thenobledrake wrote:

The rules ...

Sorry but you're ignoring the elephant in the room.

How on earth can you think the designers intended cold iron arrows to be impossibly expensive (4 gp) at low level but trivially cheap (4 gp) at high level?

Every other weapon user is required to upgrade his weapon's material grade twice to keep enjoying state of the art runes on his attacks.

There’s also the elephant that Ammunition has to keep getting purchased and consumed, where as any martial can grab a low-grade dagger and stab the Balor while the Archer is arbitrarily stuck with finding High-Grade ammunition. I could see using higher purity with Magical Ammunition, but there’s nothing really suggesting ammunition is forced into the same situation because it’s being launched from a Bow.

_____________________

Precious Material Ammunition ends up depending on your build and weapon. For example, playing an X-bow Precision Ranger, I bought 100 bolts at the beginning of book 1 or 2 of AoA (our group started with Plaguestone and segwayed into AoA) and by the end of Book 2 I’ve used maybe just under 50 bolts? On a trip to town i grabbed 10 Cold Iron and 10 Silver Bolts just in case and have only used 3 Cold Iron.

I can easily see Bow users coming across issues if they spam the ammunition too much; but a couple of ranged abilities combine damage and only exploit weaknesses once. This means Bow users can either switch to X-bow for some encounters or mix Precious Ammo with Regular Ammo when they need to use it.

Gisher wrote:

I finally got around to searching the Focus Spells. The ones with attack rolls that take less than three actions are:

Cleric
Fire Ray 1
Hurtling Stone 1
Moonbeam 1
Winter Bolt 1

Sorcerer
Elemental Toss 1

Wizard
Call of the Grave 1
Hand of the Apprentice 1

I have no idea how Hand of the Apprentice would work with Eldritch Shot, but technically it qualifies.

i don't think Hand qualifies because it needs to hurl a held weapon.

Since eldritch shot is a single activity that requires you to "wield a bow" and since wielding a 1+ hands weapon means that you hold it in 1 hand and the other hand is free, you can't simultaneously both hold a weapon to throw with Hand of the Apprentice AND wield the bow that you are shooting the arrow with.

Player: I'll use Eldritch Shot

DM: Okay, with what spell?

Player: Hand of the Apprentice!

DM:. . . As you nock the arrow and are about to let it fly. . . The Bow flies from your grasp. It hurtles across the battlefield and smacks the enemy with a definitive THUD before whisking across the sky a second time and returning to your hand, perfectly unscathed; meanwhile the arrow is still in your other hand.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

shroudb wrote:

if you're a caster already you'll have more spells, and if you have a caster archetype already you can pick up breadth from there as well though.

If you're a caster though, why are you wanting to use dex and bow proficiency to deliver spells? Even the Warpriest eventually gets master casting, but is limited to expert bows.

I agree that this might be bonkers in a double-class variant though.

more spells means that you can more easily be buffing yourself to overcome the proficiency gap.

A warpriest as an example could easily provide Heroism on himself to overcome that fault.

I'm not saying it's better to be caster->eldritch compared to martial->eldritch, just saying that it's posible, and it's an alternative playstyle.

As most things in PF2, an archetype doesn't define a character as much as the actual class, so even if someone makes a Warpriest Eldritch, he's still a Cleric at heart and has the full array of cleric abilities behind him. He will be a completely different thing than a martial Eldritch.

To add onto this; a Caster focused Eldritch Archer gains Range.

Shortbow’s 60 ft to Heavy Crossbow’s 120 ft, and up to 5 increments of that range. A number of common offensive spells and cantrips have particularly short range. It allows for some potentially interesting play.

Concept is being used pretty nebulously here. If we use a scale of concepts, from Broad to Niche, then 2e seems to land closely in the middle, and struggle towards the extremes of either end of the scale.

The only struggle I’ve personally come across with builds has been trying to fit three Archetypes into a single character that had zero synergy with each other; still possible, just really awkward. Or when trying to cover too many roles with little if any synergy between them. Though our Champion, in an AoA game, on the other hand has mentioned the same issues being expressed here; mostly too many good choices for their concept and not enough opportunities to grab them.

In some instances 2e actually makes certain concepts flesh out even faster and better than in 1e. A TWF Titan Mauler for example needs a ton of support to make it work with 1e; in 2e you can make it work as early as level 2 with Giant Totem Barb and Double Slice from Dual Weapon Warrior Archetype.

I’m not a fan of classes giving the player clutter abilities; because weather it’s a part of your character concept or not, you [i][totally/i] need these half-dozen abilities you may never use even once! 1e Archetypes were a good solution to the problem, but even then a number of concepts just can’t be fleshed out at early levels; without maybe actually making them one-dimensional or Mary Sue-ish.

There are still gaps with the content in more niche areas; such as martial based Gish struggling to get access to non-cantrip offensive magic til level 4.

A Witch and Wizard combo. Both rely on Int; Witch gives you a Familiar; can choose Arcane Patron for synergy or another Patron for another spell list. Also goes great with an Int based build relying on recall knowledge.

Sorcerer and Oracle would be my second choice. There are some powerful Revelation focus spells, and getting to use any of them once for free can be extremely powerful; combine that with Sorcerer Bloodline powers for some very interesting builds. Since they both use Cha, going Kobold for that sweet sweet sycophantic Grovel so you can you can use Feint and use a Cantrip with perfect synergy.

EDIT: i forgot Ancient Elf was only for, well, Elves. :p

With Adopted Ancestry i believe it’s still possible to get Grovel by level 5.

Castilliano wrote:

A staff only "requires" one hand, which is the wording used.

Exactly my point, thank you. The wording used in Shifting, Hands and Two-Hand is "wield", so everything checks out.

There should be no disagreement, right? Because where a weapon lands on the chart isn't the only thing that matters.

Yeah, not much to really disagree about in this regard.

Some weapons require one hand to wield, and others require two. A few items, such as a longbow, list 1+ for its Hands entry. You can hold a weapon with a 1+ entry in one hand, but the process of shooting it requires using a second to retrieve, nock, and loose an arrow. This means you can do things with your free hand while holding the bow without changing your grip, but the other hand must be free when you shoot. To properly wield a 1+ weapon, you must hold it in one hand and also have a hand free.

Weapons requiring two hands typically deal more damage. Some one-handed weapons have the two-hand trait, causing them to deal a different size of weapon damage die when used in two hands. In addition, some abilities require you to wield a weapon in two hands. You meet this requirement while holding the weapon in two hands, even if it doesn’t require two hands or have the two-hand trait.

A Staff is a One-Handed Weapon with the Two-Handed Trait; and the Shifting Rune isn’t an Ability that requires Two Hands to use. It seems to check out that you can’t use the Two Hand trait to fulfill the said requirement of same number of hands when it comes to Weapons you can choose.

68) Asimair Tengu Swashbuckler/Bard named Alber T. Ross

69) Kobold Investigator named Turok Dromes

70) Kobold Alchemist Charlatan with Trick Magic Item that claims to be a Dragon-Blooded Sorcerer (possibly sells Drake Oil cures on the side)

71) Tengu Occult Witch named Edgar A. Poe. With a monkey familiar and casts spells by writing elegies

72) Changeling Barbarian Witch; uses Cackle to sustain spells like Phantom Pain while beating you with a giant Shillelagh

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

My opinion is that a Shifter would fill an Unarmed Focused Maneuver Specialist. With at least a focus on feats similar to Brutal Bully, Thrash, Knockback, Furious Grab, Crushing Grab, Guarded Movement, and Shattering Strike.

Shifting should be a focus as well; it's kind of in the class's name. Some suggestions made so far makes me lean into a Main Battleform Flow-State, similar to how Rage or Panache works; and feats and focus spells could lean more into Chimeric Morphing, like freely adding wings, or changing unarmed damage types(S/P/B). Adding flat damage would also seem appropriate so the class could more easily be represented by many different shifting concepts. Precision Damage for animal shifters; Elemental Damage for elemental shifters; and so on.

If we are going with that approach, I feel like EVERY feat (or at least feat line) should actually be its own transformation/pseudo transformation, where the shifter assumes a form/grows a part that does the action.

Grab feats would be growing tentacles. Shove feats would involve bull horns get traction on the target. Trip would be growing a tail and doing a sweep.

Some of that could easily be done with flavor text; but i agree that Thematic Feat-Lines would be more than welcome. The Chimera one, in my mind, would be for concepts like Suneater and Kevin Levin. Overall, partial shifting seems to be a popular choice, and was definitely supported in the base class and archetypes( even if the execution was less than stellar ). Leaning favorably into the Morph trait, and specializing in Polymorph, seems like the way to go IMO.

I like the ideas mentioned about role flexibility, akin to a Feral Druid, and mixing Morph traits to allow for a Nature themed problemsolver. It gives the class a little more breadth to it than just worrying about combat role.

Style Shifter was an Archetype that revolved around Partial Shifting. With how Stances work on Monk, what would some ideas be for that? Should they allow Morphed strikes to just merge with Stances; or give them class specific Stances that make use of Morph traits? The example they give in 1e is with a Style Shifter stacking Boar Style and Boar Aspect. I’m curious what people think.

I believe the Shifter has a similar Class potential as the Swashbuckler did; and i feel most of the forum was just as surprised by how quickly it came out, as well as how solidly the concept was(or at least those are the comments i saw surrounding the PT).

I would start by wondering what role people feel it should/would fill if it was a class. Swashbuckler seemed to be built to fill the role of movement and debuffer; or a nice mix of Rogue and Monk that no class really filled as smoothly at the time.

My opinion is that a Shifter would fill an Unarmed Focused Maneuver Specialist. With at least a focus on feats similar to Brutal Bully, Thrash, Knockback, Furious Grab, Crushing Grab, Guarded Movement, and Shattering Strike.

Shifting should be a focus as well; it's kind of in the class's name. Some suggestions made so far makes me lean into a Main Battleform Flow-State, similar to how Rage or Panache works; and feats and focus spells could lean more into Chimeric Morphing, like freely adding wings, or changing unarmed damage types(S/P/B). Adding flat damage would also seem appropriate so the class could more easily be represented by many different shifting concepts. Precision Damage for animal shifters; Elemental Damage for elemental shifters; and so on.

Being able to use shifting prowess for utility is also a must imo. Weather it's the ability to stay in certain forms for 24 hours, like pest forms; or shifting parts of your limbs for a bonus in things like climbing or swimming.

An initial tie to Primal seems most suited, but you could also tie in Spell Traditions to Shifter Order(for lack of a better term). Animal and Elemental would make most sense as Primal; but Construct or Ooze would make just as much sense with Arcane and Occult.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Also, at this level you'd have a striking rune I'd imagine, which helps more on the crossbow's larger damage dice. Comparing the shortbow, that would be 20.5 damage on the first hit vs 25.5 damage. Running Reload also offers a lot of contextual benefits that don't show up in white room DPR, like using the extra movement to remove cover bonuses or sneak once you get the right feats.

The extra die size of the crossbow is significant as the striking runes get better. It is why I dont mind the crossbow as a one shot occasional weapon.

But you are totally over selling Running Reload, a ranged character should not be moving every round. Its one of the advantages of ranged - you pick your spot and make them move. If you are using it a lot you are wasting actions and you probably aren't getting your hunted pery, or command animal in.

Retrograding with a ranged weapon is a specific tactic that requires a party built around it to do it more than once or twice.

He’s not really overselling Running Reload at all. Being able to Hide and Reload as a single action is great, and arguably more effective for crossbows. When combined with other Feats like Hunter’s Aim or Penetrating Shot it becomes even more of a one-hit-wonder that a Bow simply can’t keep up with. All of this on top of the fact that bows have to expend twice the ammunition that a crossbow does just to get ahead kinda shows that bows are meant to be better with flexibility and flurry builds while crossbows are meant to be better as heavy hitters.

Currently playing a Crossbow Ranger with an Animal Companion. Completed Plaguestone and Book 1 of AoA and still don’t have buyer’s remorse for my weapon or build choice. Have yet to come across any issues that couldn’t be chalked up to learning a new system; with the exception of how easily the Heavy Crossbow can be eclipsed by the Alchemical one.

The chapter on Spells is able to answer this. Bold for the relevant parts:

Spells with a range can affect targets, create areas, or make things appear only within that range. Most spell ranges are measured in feet, though some can stretch over miles, reach anywhere on the planet, or go even farther!

Some spells allow you to directly target a creature, an object, or something that fits a more specific category. The target must be within the spell’s range, and you must be able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it normally. At the GM’s discretion, you can attempt to target a creature you can’t see, as described in Detecting Creatures on pages 465–467. If you fail to target a particular creature, this doesn’t change how the spell affects any other targets the spell might have.

If you choose a target that isn’t valid, such as if you thought a vampire was a living creature and targeted it with a spell that can target only living creatures, your spell fails to target that creature. If a creature starts out as a valid target but ceases to be one during a spell’s duration, the spell typically ends, but the GM might decide otherwise in certain situations.

So if you establish a Spirit Link and then walk 5’ too far it would just end.

If you used the Reach Spell Metamagic though, i believe you could extend the range to 60ft for the entire duration.

@Wheldrake - Your Shield Runes idea seemed a little wonky so i tweaked the numbers and staggered it through the levels; but it basically acts as an extension to how Shield stats are currently calculated. I turned it into an item bonus so it doesn’t interfere with Emblazoned Armament and acts like other Runes. . . mostly that is. . .

I did allow it to go up to +5, which is unusual for Runes, or Bonuses in general this edition. If you feel they’re still to weak you can multiply the numbers by 2 or 3. I couldn’t think up how to price them though.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

Would you be able to source where it says Adamantine is Rare? I just double checked my CRB and did a search on AoN, and Adamantine comes up as Uncommon, not Rare. The only Adamantine item that’s Rare being the Indestructible Shield itself.

Misremembered. My apologies.

No problem really, it happens.

Fighter’s Reflexive Shield Feat would allow for this exact thing, but under normal circumstances Themetricsystem is right in that you can’t normally block non-physical attacks as per Shield Block’s trigger.

Even in the circumstance of Reflexive Shield, you would calculate the damage like any other Shield Block.

Reflexive Shield E.x.

Fireball: 21 dmg

Standard-Grade Dragonhide: Hardness 4

21 - 4 = 17 dmg to the Shield and the Wielder; though since the Shield is immune in this instance then just the Wielder would take the damage.

Honestly a little bit baffled by someone saying "non-sturdy shields that rely on blocking can't keep up, their numbers suck"

and then a couple posts later someone replies "my [Character] loves their sturdy shield, shields are fine!"

over and over and over....

As silly as the Sturdy Shield response was, i find it more baffling that there are some that still use Forge Warden to make a Strawman about Shields in general and then complain about it.

Over and over and over....

The real problem in my mind with the magus as Master martial and expert caster, is that the fighter MC caster is just going to be universally better at doing what this class is supposed to be doing as niche.

This is also an issue i see going with the ‘Focus-Caster’ route. A Fighter, or any Martial really, can MCD any caster for spells and Master Spellcasting, and grab ‘Magus’ for Spellstrike and now we just have a better ‘Magus’. A Focus based Martial sounds like a good idea for a reimagined Eldritch Knight rather than a butchered Magus.

As for Caster MCD feeling like a tax; you get Master Spellcasting, Additional Spell slots and whatever other icings the class may get as specific features. Is there a downside? Are these supposed 18th level class feats that good?

I like the idea of merging a Stride action with a Somatic action; have it effectively work like Running Reload. That actually solves most issues i see with the Magus coming to 2e.

As much as i like the idea of Magus having Master in Weapons, i’m thinking more and more that Expert in Arms and Armor with Master Spellcasting is the best way to go. If you have any less than Master then, like Greystone says, MCD feels like a mandatory tax. This also allows the freedom to add abilities that can augment the stats for where they’re needed; such as abilities like Ki Strike giving a temp status bonus to Attack Rolls.

Most Rogues won't be specialized in Medicine. Rogues don't have bonuses in Wisdom so they are not good at Battle Medicine. And Medicine is just out of combat healing, so it should not be counted in this list (also, Medicine is overrated, it is useful only for a bunch of levels before being replaced around level 10 by wands of Heal).

I would put them F tier as there is nothing related to healing in their class features.

Out of Combat healing is perfectly legitimate as it will lower the resources required for In Combat healing. I would consider Druid a better healer than any Primal Sorc simply because of GoodBerry alone. That doesn’t make them much better, but enough to be worth consideration. While a Medicine Specialized Rogue may not be enough to cover an entire party; if you couple them with an Alchemist that brews Elixers of Life, then I’d say you have a pretty good foundation.

I will say Bibi is right in that Treat Wounds doesn’t scale that well. Medicine gets better when you can roll for the higher DC which Assurance won’t catch up to nearly quick enough. For example even a Rogue won’t get assurance to 20 till level 6 and only heal for 2d8 + 10 every 10min. Rogue will certainly be able to specialize quicker and more efficiently than a Monk, but the Monk will eventually catch up and possibly even be able to roll the higher DC more consistently.

When more Skill feats get printed i feel you’re right that Rogue will get even better; but with what we have currently it’s just not enough IMO.

I feel like a very important classification missing from GentlemanDM's list is "Healer/Medic", which I think is distinctly different than "Leader". Now that any Class can effectively fill that role technically:

• Clerics S tier
• Rogue Alchemist Sorcerer-Angelic Bloodline A tier
• Champion Druid Bard Sorcerer-Divine B tier
• Monk Sorcerer-Primarl/Occult C tier
• Wizard Sorcerer-Arcane D Tier
• Fighter Ranger Barbarian F tier

But that's my take. Might be forgetting specific builds.

I’d consider Cleric and Angelic-Sorc both S tier. Cleric definitely has more options, but most if not all are pretty specific options or feel like must haves as well as fight for the already limited pool of Class Feats. Cleric also has a stronger start, but once they both get a Staff of Healing it’s pretty much a toss up with the Prepared/Spontaneous differences.

Primal-Sorc i’d probably couple with Druid as well. Unless Goodberry and a +1 to Wis makes that much of a difference they pretty much do the same thing; Druid’s Healing Transformation is kind of a weaker Heal.

Rogue i’d also couple with Monk personally.

The problem I have with antidote/antiplague is that the way you use them kind of runs counter to concept of perpetual.

There's definitely some utility to be able to just give everyone antidotes/antiplagues every day, but it also feels kind of weird to me that you gain the ability to spontaneously create potions that last for six hours, which means often times only needing to drink them once a day.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

I’ll actually counter the Perpetual Mutagens idea. As i’ve been thinking about it using perpetual mutagens for smaller and less important combats would be rather useful, and allow an Alchemist to only need a handful of full strength Mutagens while the rest of their supply can be anything else.

How many combats are you expecting to fight in the average day? Generally my experience is that four to five mutagens are more than enough for a whole adventuring day... and now that mutagenists have flashback it's more like three to four.

That's not to say that perpetual mutagens are terrible, but they're more useful for being able to quickly throw together a cognitive or silvertongue mutagen to give someone a bonus to a skill check than being used as combat supplementals. Mutagens are too efficient for the downgrade to be worthwhile in a fight.

Most of this i pretty much agree with. Though with Mutagenist’s Greater Field Discovery one might be guzzling through them quicker than expected. The idea to use Perpetual on skill Mutagens is a neat one though.

Where i disagree is that Mutagenic downsides are inefficient to their bonuses.

That title sounds so so wrong. Poor Animal Companions. Q.Q

Currently have a Gnome Ranger using a Badger Companion that is actually a Ferret. Same family of Mustelidae.

That actually doesn’t seem that over powered. Some assumptions have to be taken into consideration, but it actually looks pretty nice.

I wanted to hit a number of these all at once.

__________________________________________

1. What is a Gish?

Like Gorbacz said, a Gish is most commonly a Martial that can cast spells; and the term originated with the Githyanki. Not that high of a bar to reach.

2. What tradition of magic is a Gish?

With the fact that 2e brought in two new traditions of magic (Occult/Primal) and the original inspiration for the niche was a Fighter/Wizard, Arcane would be the most basic assumption. That said there is a specific Magus Archetype called the 'Nature-Bonded Magus' that reads; 'A nature-bonded magus synergies arcane magic and the divine magic traditions of druids into a deadly synthesis.' This would be good evidence to support that a Gish is pretty much just a Martial/Magic Hybrid, and any tradition could apply.

3. What about MC caster Spell Slots being so low??

Currently Arcane gets the biggest break in this area. By level 10 with a Familiar, a type 2 Ring of Wizardry and the 'Spell' Breadth feat in Caster MC's, you end up with [4/3/1] 1st to 3rd lv spell slots. This is before taking Staves and other items into account.

4. Does magic have to be part of your combat rotation?

Well, frankly no, it doesn't as far as i'm aware.

5. Is a Gish impossible with the 2e system?

Not in the least. There's using a Shifting or off-handing a Divination Staff for a pool of True Strikes that was mentioned; using Jump to trigger Bespell Weapon for Flurry builds; Channel Smite for getting Harm infused powerful strikes; and shifting a fight with significant buff/debuff spells to tip a 50/50 fight into a 60/40 one.

6. Is this any better than a Fighter/Martial just grabbing their own feats?

Depends on the build in particular. Using the previous examples the answer is yes, but it comes with the catch of having a pretty limited pool of resources to rely on; and spamming too much will result in spans of less than optimal play than if you were going with a regular Martial Build; but in well timed scenarios you will be rather strong.

________________________________

Currently i'm looking into making a build with a Scoundrel Rogue that focuses on Innate Spellcasting to be an Arcane Trickster. I want to see how effective it can be w/o multi-classing.

Pumpkinhead11, just because you like/agree with a mechanic doesn’t make it good game design.

I asked for reasons for the formula requirement.
Reasons were given, I pointed out flaws and inconsistencies in those reasons.
Evidently those flaws and inconsistencies did not convince the Captain or you that formulas are not needed for game balance, are not good for immersion preservation and are not fun.

Yet, I don't accuse you of being set in stone.

Let me ask an open question.
Who among us will require a formula to craft a club in our home games?

All of your reasons and ‘inconsistencies’ are entirely based on anecdotal evidence and extremely circumstantial situations. It’s pretty clear from your responses, including this one, that you’re not interested in seeing any benefits of the mechanic; you’re more interested in being right. You just don’t like formulas. You even have reasons that you don’t like it. You feel that it has much more flaws than benefits, if any benefits at all. Cool, and good to know. I found none of your points convincing and calling the mechanic flawed based entirely on anecdotal evidence and personal feeling on the matter just isn’t convincing no matter how i look at it.

To answer your question:

This is a piece of stout wood shaped or repurposed to bludgeon an enemy. Clubs can be intricately carved pieces of martial art or as simple as

a tree branch or piece of wood.

I’d just give my player a big stick and call it a day.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

Vlorax wrote:

Couldn't agree more with this. I remember seeing a post in PF1 of a Bow wielding monk soloing the Tarrasque without ever being hit. Now having seen the stats for the Tarrasque in PF2 and how the system works there's no way it could happen, which is a good thing to me.

Slightly off topic, but where can you find the stats for the Tarrasque?

Age of Ashes part 6, Broken Promises

SPOILERS!!! OAO

No spoilers

The Tarrasque does not show up in the AP itself, it's in the backmatter toolbox.

It doesn’t show up? SPOILERS!!! OAO

to be fair you were doomed with either response :p

Cap you’re not gonna change their mind on this; they were pretty set in stone from their fist few comments.

Ron, just because you don’t like/agree with a mechanic doesn’t make it poor game design.

Salamileg wrote:

Vlorax wrote:

Couldn't agree more with this. I remember seeing a post in PF1 of a Bow wielding monk soloing the Tarrasque without ever being hit. Now having seen the stats for the Tarrasque in PF2 and how the system works there's no way it could happen, which is a good thing to me.

Slightly off topic, but where can you find the stats for the Tarrasque?

Age of Ashes part 6, Broken Promises

SPOILERS!!! OAO

Mabtik wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

Its the mechanics by which tension in the moment-to-moment arises.

"I hit him with my sword"
"Ok, he dies."
"Cool! I hit the next guy with my sword"
"He dies too."

You pretty much described how I feel watching martial characters play.

I normally play enchantment/illusion characters as dice rolling just isn't my thing, and adding more reasons for me to touch the accursed things isn't fun - for me at least.

I personally find dice a little nerve-wracking as I'm personally cursed (I have bad luck confirmation bias). But my long experience and most online sentiment leads me to believe people like it.

I think people feel more control of their fate if they get to roll the dice when they do a thing. Which also a superstition, but a very gut-level one. And one I have no issue enabling.

Nothing really superstitious about it. Rolling dice is partly a sign and reason to be actively engaged with the environment and story. Plus big die pools are a lot of shiny bobbles rolling around; and is entertaining to watch. :D

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

Then you haven’t been paying much attention to Alchemist threads. Putting aside complaints about Mutagenist, DPR is pretty much all those threads talk about.

Not really.

You say this as there is quite literally a thread title comparing Cantrips to Alc Bomb damage, again. That said, after taking a cursory look at said thread it seems to actually be a much more positive conversation on the class than i’ve seen before.

GM perspective: I'd allow it since there are no rules against it, but I would ask the player to describe how their character looks while fully equipped. At some point if they try to wear bandoliers from head to toe they should feel some shame when describing their character.

*crafts Explorer’s Clothing out of Bandoliers*

Practicality knows no shame!

Gorbacz wrote:

That entirely depends on what you mean by "their job", which you didn't outline.

What do you think?

Killing monsters while not getting killed in return. Obviously.

(Sorry to be blunt. But while you can argue the game is about other things than combat, it's only when your life is on the line a discussion like this really matters. That is, in any other situation, just about any character can get the job done eventually)

Sorry to be blunt, but i don’t think you know how tier lists are actually designed.

Henro wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

It's cool that some spells have a failure effect,

Actual question here, I'm not being rhetorical or sarcastic or anything because I'm actually not sure myself.

Doesn't every or at least extremely close to every offensive spell with a save have a result on a success? I feel like I might have seen one that didn't but I don't remember which one in that case. Whenever I've looked at the spells it always seemed to me that an incredibly large majority of save spells have an effect on a success.

ChibiNyan wrote:

I realize the optimal strat versus bosses is "pick spells expecting they'll succed on the save, but not crit save", it doesn't feel super fun to me.

In my experience, the optimal strategy against bosses has been "pick spells that have good effects and raise you chances of success by as much as possible with debuffs and by targeting weak saves".

I'm at work so can't check every spell, but pretty sure there's some with no effect on a save success (I recall some cantrips), this is in addition to all that require a Spell Attack Roll, all of which just "miss".

There’s also the possibility of having the party helping with debuffs. Also using Staffs helps resources not feel so limited. Pretty sure casters aren’t designed as ‘consolation prize’ classes.

The fact that the change of the iconic was enough to bring about such a biased and ignorant comment about representation like it’s a quota that must be met to be considered an inclusive anything just goes to show you can’t please everybody.

My sympathy for those that actually liked the Oracle Iconic. Personally she was the weakest from an appearance standpoint; but a clothing redesign could have fixed as much like has been mentioned. In all honesty i was more in favor of the Catfolk Swashbuckler, but Tengu Oracle is a nice consolation prize in my book.

Seriously, just make an errata page on your website and update it every week. There's absolutely no good reason to make us wait so long. It's 2019, not 1989.

I fail to see how mentioning the current year has anything to do with how a company operates.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

If you look at table 6-19 it shows that tiny creatures have a bulk limit. Which means Tiny creatures have a Bulk Limit, but half as much as a Small or Medium creature; so 2.5 Bulk limit at minimum.

2.5 minimum? It's (5+Strength modifier)/2. 0 is the minimum. And familiars have no Strength, so I doubt people read it like 10 Strength.

I hadn't seen the rules for larger weapons. So, I agree with you that they should be able to operate a larger weapon.
I still think this ruling is quite far stretched, and that you can expect table variations.

Actually it doesn’t say weather you subtract or not with a negative strength score; if so then Fantasy Grounds didn’t get the memo. :p

Then assuming a carry capacity of 0 as a minimum, and w/o strength stats we can use the athletics modifier’s -4 to guess a minimum strength of 2. With that a tiny creature can be expected to manipulate 0.5~1 bulk at the most.

Your familiar’s save modifiers and AC are equal to yours before applying circumstance or status bonuses or penalties. Its Perception, Acrobatics, and Stealth modifiers are equal to your level plus your spellcasting ability modifier (Charisma if you don’t have one, unless otherwise specified). If it attempts an attack roll or other skill check, it uses your level as its modifier. It doesn’t have or use its own ability modifiers and can never benefit from item bonuses.

With that i’d say it’s reasonable to assume any stats it would have are based on the PC it’s bound to; weather via Casting Stat or Charisma.