Quandary's page

IMHO no, an immunity to certain poison isn't really generalized immunity, , especially as poisons can be based on totally distinct principles: i.e. enzyme based, inorganic chemical based, radiation based. Maybe I could justify giving Gripplis an immunity or resistance to one specific kind of poison, but not everything in general, which is what "poison resistance" implies. In balance terms, I think this is like Elves having special immunity one certain type of paralsysis inflicted by Ghouls, not all paralysis, or not all necromancy etc. Mostly I wouldn't bother unless it was somehow important to explaining something I wanted to do with setting, i.e. Gripplis using poison that didn't work on each other. Just as ungrounded speculation it doesn't seem to add much to game.

Not gratifying a certain expectation isn't the same as being a trap. It might feel disappointing if you realize your expectation that an archer will always be out of range of enemy damage isn't realistic. But that isn't necessary for them to have value.

They can actually attack with bow while in melee range of enemy, and if they have action remaining after dropping that enemy that can immediately target one across the room. Although if they are Flanking that enemy, that could be reason to switch to melee weapon for that attack - which is easy for Bows since they keep one hand free when not attacking with them, you can easily make Unarmed strike or use Quickdraw to utilize melee weapon. They still don't need to spend as many actions on movement merely to qualify to make attacks, even if they do move sometimes to avoid penalties, it does tend to happen less frequently and when they do it tends to force melee enemies to waste action moving to them if they want to engage. A melee specialist is generally unable to move and attack two different enemies who aren't adjacent, since that needs 2x strides and 2x strikes while that is generally a very reasonable thing for archer to do and they may not even need to move once, leaving an action for many other things like intimidate or recall knowledge.

Having max DEX does also yield benefits for Reflex saves, with even Sentinel builds needing to spend many Feats to achieve a bonus for all Reflex Saves and it would still lag max DEX bonus by some. AC isn't really a differentiator except with Heavy Armor, although fair to point out armor is major reason for archer to invest in STR especially if they aim for Heavy Armor with worse penalties. But by mid-game most archers should be moving to at least Medium Armor to get it's Fortification Runes, even if they aren't going for Heavy Armor (if they lack the STR, or prefer more movement speed, etc).

Also, unfortunately, for the Monk, there is currently no wisdom based occult caster so they pretty much can only multiclass into Cleric if they are wanting to effectively use offensive spells while relying on their own spellcasting progression.

Not really true, you are assuming they need high WIS for own Monk spells. Actually they can ignore WIS for those, only taking non-Save/Attack dependent Monk spells, while still applying Monk Occult proficiency to Occult multiclass spells (slot or Focus) which use different stat like CHA.

[Advanced Weapon Training is] a level 6 feat too, which means 6 levels of underperforming

Just use a standard bow until yout get top notch proficiency.

Quandary wrote:

I actually recommended Daikyu (and proposed facilitating it's proficiency for Ranged subclass) in context of Playtest Magus since they have lower proficiency compared to standard martial (and Spellstrike gave them big crits anyways, albeit that dynamic could change in final rules).

I'm not sure I get the logic on this point. I would think you'd want the weapon with a higher crit, specifically because you want to maximize your crits so badly with the playtest magus, so might as well use the weapon that doubles down on that playstyle. Are you taking the opposite approach, and recommending it so that the daikyu's higher base damage acts as a safety for when you don't quite pull it all off?

Yeah, that was my rationale for that approach... Avoid "over-kill" to favor the meat and potatoes where it can still make a difference. Not to mention the larger die does also increase crit damage somewhat, with max Striking Runes (4 dice, which Magus Potency granted early in Playtest) coming close to equivalent of Deadly d10.

I can't really get behind the extreme criticisms here, although there is some stuff that clearly needs Errata (Reload) and I do think it's plausible that a Composite Variant could exist (which current RAW doesn't exclude, it just doesn't explicitly support, which also seems within realm of editing snafu IMHO), but that's as far as I would go (not wanting to undermine it's basic premise, i.e. lacking Deadly).

But only adapting the Reload aspect, I've considered it to be a good weapon choice for plenty of builds myself. Giving up deadly for larger damage dice AND range without Volley doesn't seem a bad trade especially for anybody with lower attack proficiency and/or lacks multiattack abilities like Ranger Flurry who will be Critting less often... But even Fighters/Rangers could also value the bigger normal hits without Volley, particularly at higher level where Deadly declines in relative impact (and their 2nd/3rd shots should be hitting more). Even without a Composite version, the efficacy of STR for Compound Shortbow is very marginal, basically if you don't have STR as primary stat you will never get more than +2 damage (primary STR characters can reach +3 damage i.e. +6 STR mod at Level 17 but at lower DEX/attack bonus), which can easily be enough to make STR a "pass" for more complex builds using other stats (like caster multiclass, or just certain skill builds).

I actually recommended Daikyu (and proposed faciliating it's proficiency for Ranged subclass) in context of Playtest Magus since they have lower proficiency compared to standard martial (and Spellstrike gave them big crits anyways, albeit that dynamic could change in final rules). But there's plenty of other builds I would consider it for, and I think it's a reasonable usage of Feats to aim to get by mid-level (for scaling proficiency). Even Fighters and Flurry Rangers aren't Critting all that often on 2nd/3rd attacks especially given it isn't Agile, so I don't think it's really bad for them if they want heavier regular hits.

I do think a concrete/fundamentalist application of "is it worth the Feats" perspective can often leads to flawed outcomes and may be behind the discrepancy of opinion on this. Since a given character could not want to do the things necessary to make other "stronger Feats" viable and not have any pressing "need" for those Feat slots (e.g. as needed for this Advanced weapon).

The OP did seem weirdly focused on appraising it solely by what is achievable at 1st level when that is possible yet not necessary (I get that people may prefer one character image that stays constant over levels, but game itself just doesn't enforce/require that) along with rather restrictive view of Champion weapon choice, while also overlooking Unconventional Weaponry (the RAW perhaps doesn't clearly allow this weapon, but I also don't think it's against RAW to consider it as eligible re: "common in another culture").

They are going to need one long stream to answer all the questions backed up in this thread.

Seriously, if expectations changed since they started this, they should make that clear so thread can be closed if appropriate.
Letting it stick around when the original premise is no longer true just seems misleading and unconstructive.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Are you aware that players get to decide if they shield block after they know how much damage it would deal?

I honestly forgot that part. That does help. I'll still keep the houserule at my table just from the standpoint of not wanting such expensive items being quasi consumables. It also let's shield players squeeze one more near half health block out of their shield, even if it's a crit.

Fair enough. I am surprised you think there's any danger of a sturdy shield being destroyed though. Other shields, sure, but I've barely seen a relatively on level sturdy shield be broken and have never seen one destroyed.

There's not really any risk for other shields either, with the amount of damage always known before the block. Even a non-Sturdy Lion Shield (Level 6) can Block an AVERAGE Level 18 attack without being Destroyed (only Broken, i.e. Repairable AKA Refocus for Shields). Although the focus on average damage seen in online discourse is itself dubious, considering P2E's tendency for more dice instead of flat damage bonuses means plenty of attacks will be "below average damage". So even low-mid level non-sturdy shields CAN successfully block high level attacks without immediately being broken, never mind destroyed... even if only vs. lower damage rolls.

That isn't even a fundamental shift vs. low level, where max damage rolls and especially crits can even threaten maximally tough on-level shields. At Level 4 with Sturdy Shield of that level, it's fully possible for plausible enemies (<=Level 6) to one-hit Destroy it on a Crit: Striking d12 with Deadly/Fatal-> 60 + 12 from extra dice/flat bonus = Break HP + Resistance. Of course, that is choice of the shield wielder to block such an attack at cost of their shield. The value and role of the item/ability just doesn't hinge on or assume "always using it at every opportunity", it's a tactic to use situationally like many other parts of the game. Sure, not "keeping up" with on-level Sturdy Shield means one tends to Block less frequently if you don't want to treat Shield as "consumable" (or immediately lose AC value if it's broken), but nobody is Blocking every single attack anyways, between limited Reactions and damage stacking up from multiple Blocked attacks.

You don't need advanced theoretical system analysis to use that, anybody naievely picking up the rules can take advantage of that. It's only people insisting their own (or borrowed) limited tunnel vision analysis is absolutely valid, who preclude themselves from using those options because they convinced themselves it isn't worth it.

Pragmatically, I think the prospect of future feats and options (alchemy items as well as research fields, albeit the latter not relevant to existing fields) does offer opportunity for improvement, even if it still may not satisfy everybody... Which should be fine, since insisting every option be attractive to every taste seems a formula for a very boring game.

I'm actually most interested in how the upcoming Inventor and Gunslinger classes relate to Alchemist, particularly since I never really saw the case for them being distinct classes from Alchemist in the first place: Gunslinger I don't see rationale for at all, as in setting where guns are radical and extraordinary, having their apex usage being tied to somebody who crafts them and their ammunition (i.e. Alchemist or Inventor) seems totally reasonable and the Gunslinger "trope" doesn't seem necessary or what I would imagine if told guns existed in Golarion setting. Alchemist and Inventor seem subsets of same 'inventor/crafter' formula, and I had always proposed "Tinker" or "Gadgeteer" (explicitly envisioning "companions" and "mecha-armor/weapon augments") as Research Fields and areas of content that could be integrated in Alchemist. And within a generally low-tech (but crypto-magical) setting, I just don't see the rationale in so tightly policing the border between these types of "tech", when heroically "genius" tech-crafters seem liable to be "renaissance" polymaths.

Now Paizo seems dedicated to those as separate classes, but I still imagine there are ways to utilize that material in a way to improve Alchemists. New options to use alchemical reagents to create effects of Inventor, or Gunslinger... The thematic coherence of Guns/Bombs being an obvious one to me, and while low-proficiency chassis isn't "optimal" for Guns, they can be made to work if augmented with Alchemical reagents or other abilities. Of course, an Alchemist with Multiclass Dedication: Inventor or Gunslinger (or non-Multiclass Archetypes focused on those areas) would/should be possible, but I think it's justified to offer "native" options for the Alchemist in those areas without worrying about Archetypes. From general Alchemy formula, Feats, and Research Fields... So allowing to help any and all existing Research Fields and builds, but also offering ones specifically focusing on Alchemy/Inventor fusion, so to speak. In terms of the lowest common denominator, it seems reasonable to allow Item bonuses via those approaches which could ameliorate some concerns in that areas, while "eating into" reagents/feats in a way that is balanced vs. other possible Alchemist builds. Gunslinger and Inventor could still have own niche, but Alchemist could also be a 3rd way to engage with much of the same themes (and even offer its own unique embellishments of gun/tinkertech).

Hmm, actually that leads into one of my biggest complaints about swords. Versatile P is everpresent, and is literally the most useless ability in the game. There are I think 3 rare creatures in the entire bestiary that it offers any benefit to do piercing damage over slashing. It is better to do bludgeoning damage than have slashing and piercing combined.

So maybe your complaint is best targetted not at changing what swords do, which isn't likely to change for core items, but instead targetted at how monsters are designed... New monsters certainly able to be designed with consideration of favoring Weakness: Piercing or Resistance to Slashing/Bludgeoning or "Physical (except Piercing)"

It's also fair to note that even if Piercing may not be uniquely optimal in as many cases, if it can avoid a suboptimality of Slashing it is still useful Trait to have on a Sword. I think Swords tend to be a strong group in total features (incl. damage) even if you don't think this is #1 attraction of them, so there is solid reason to use Swords in the first place. And yet the best Armor Resistance often tends to be vs Slashing (Heavy Plates), so Versatile(P) is nice to have on a Sword (even if it's not strictly better than Versatile(B) on a Slashing weapon).

I think there is also room for Feats/Runes/etc that only work on Piercing weapons (or other damage types), or for that matter to require Versatile damage types.

Yeah, that's something I wish the rules had handled better, along with something like ID'ing the broad type of a creature and possibly features common to that, even if you can't ID the specific creature type. Seems like knowing something is a Dragon is reasonable even if you mix up the specifics.

Actually, I do not think we can really mistake them for Fiends. Because those need Religion to identify IIRC, whereas I think Tieflings fall under Society.

Well, yeah that's why Recall Knowledge is a Secret check rolled by the GM and player doesn't really even need to be aware of what skill is being used, they just declare they are Recalling Knowledge and get a result.

"Even when his teeth are visible it won't scream "FIEND" to anyone."

But that's the thing, that is now a mechanical difference that is generally advantageous.
The rules don't care what the specific appearance is, and 1E had plenty of diversity in Tieflings to be inspired from,
but the point is there is something that is self evidently non-Human (or whateer else your base Ancestry is).
Just like a Human is evidently Human, a Dwarf is a evidently a Dwarf, and you need disguise check to appear otherwise.

Here is what 1E had to say on their appearance:
"No two tieflings look alike; the fiendish blood running through their veins manifests inconsistently, granting them an array of fiendish traits. One tiefling might appear as a human with small horns, a barbed tail, and oddly colored eyes, while another might manifest a mouth of fangs, tiny wings, and claws, and yet another might possess the perpetual smell of blood, foul incenses, and brimstone. Typically, these qualities hearken back in some way to the manner of fiend that spawned the tiefling's bloodline, but even then the admixture of human and fiendish blood is rarely ruled by sane, mortal laws, and the vast flexibility it produces in tieflings is a thing of wonder, running the gamut from oddly beautiful to utterly terrible. "

Since they are "spawned" from all types of fiends (devils, demons, daemons, divs, you name it) which are all very diverse even within their subtype, there isn't really a clear limit on what they can look like... Other than it is obviously a Tiefling. It is true that the art is often red-tinged with horns, but that is just art... You don't think humans really look like a Picasso painting do you? So don't take the artwork as so definitive, the artists are not the authors of the world and creatures, they are producing to order and often throw in their own assumptions that aren't even canon or certainly aren't "mandatory/universal" in this case. Sure, red horned tieflings exist, but that doesn't mean they are the majority or only kind. All the discussion of tieflings we see emphasizes their diversity, which wouldn't be done if they were JUST "red horned people".

KrispyXIV wrote:

Which is to say, its absolutely totally optional.

You seemed to have missed my point: IF you want to use shield block, you have to buy into either having one of a VERY small number of shields or treating them as consumable. That and I talked about how it FELT: you can disagree with me on how it feels if you want but feelings aren't objective truths.

I'm confused because I see Cyouni comment above yours that demonstrates how even Level 6 Lion Shield can be used against average Level 18 attacks without being Destroyed, i.e. only being Broken means it is NOT Consumable but merely 1/combat that is "Refocused" with Repair.

Also confused by the focus solely on average and above-average damage ignores below-average damage attacks, which with 2E's shift from static bonuses to more dice, does vary significantly and means even at later levels there are attacks that a low level Shield can Block without Breaking (never mind getting Destroyed). Not that max damage Crits can't also threaten Shields with Breaking at low levels too, so this doesn't even seem a fundamental shift in gameplay.

Given that most characters won't even have more than 1 Reaction and might use it for something else besides Block (precluding ability to Block that round, making the question of whether they can Block every single attack against them academic), I don't see any problem that Block can become an less frequent action especially without dedication to specific gear for that. Obviously I expect anybody who dedicates Feats etc to Blocking would get such gear to maximize usage of those Feats, same as any other mechanic.

Some of this stuff seems more in the realm of implicit gripes about game balance or preferred flavor of candy, than rules ambiguity as such.
To be fair, in some cases an explanatory FAQ is probably more appropriate than Errata where RAW isn't wrong as such.
Stuff where the issue is exactly how certain mechanics intersect is where "executive summary" of FAQ seems like what people really want.
Perhaps Paizo will get around too releasing actual FAQ soon, with their once-promised new FAQ system, or just the old system
which wasn't really all that bad and certainly the best part about it was actually getting FAQ topics published every so often.

The funny thing about those real world towers is most of them have a barn area, that itself is on the 2nd floor or above... I think they made a ramp from planks to herd animals up into it.

I imagined them fitting Varisia (the historical and heritage of pre-Chelish society seems like it could be fleshed out more, other than weirdo Kaer Maga which doesn't really seem like typical cultural showcase), but the tower/wall/whatever to deal with giants concept could probably work in other areas of Golarion impacted by Giants and their ancient empires.

Anyhow, maybe this can be open thread for anybody else to share world art they can imagine in Golarion somehow?

Maybe it's because it's the Age of Lost Omens, so prophecies about when Errata will happen just don't work?

/s /s /s /S /S/ S

No. Especially because plenty of people may play with just the core rulebook, so having core ability that isn't relevant to core rules would be dumb.

"even if they just are just passing through and couldn't normally search" just feels absurdly contrived.
You are complaining about hypothetically making more content to deal with Investigator, but you are OK spending time on creating clues you don't expect anybody will have time to investigate? And are angry Investigator will notice them?

Stonecunning seems the most relevant example. None of this is really about revealing something anybody else couldn't have seen. None of this stuff seems much different to somebody having Independent Familiar/Eidolon for 2nd Exploration action on Search.

I mean, if you are worried about a Feat breaking something, then you can ban the Feat, but I don't really see why.

Yes. Nothing like Shoony when one is tired of theatrics and is ready for straight faced seriousness.

For what it's worth, I'd also like Raise a Tome itself improved somewhat and/or extended with Feat line, although that isn't really particular to only DEX build Maguses.

I feel like this thread is too much based on attachment to P1E or earlier mechanical assumptions and paradigms. It's a different game, the paradigms aren't the same. If you want to keep boosting DEX, the difference isn't HUGE vs max DEX considering declining returns above 18. 4x stat boosts make old way of talking about stats obsolete, you don't have just one stat far and above others anymore...

Anyways, I see the basis of what OP talks about, and yeah for where you are looking at, that's the dynamic of Magus... nothing wrong with that. That's kind of a trend in P2E, accepting systemic paradigms instead of bypassing them, which then becomes normalized (and if you don't, then you're just not a "dextrous fighter type"). Of course, Ranged Magus is core build now, and that could extend to Finesse switch-hitting which I think is viable. One of basic Feats is free Recall with Unarmed Strike (an action economy booster with broader combat support relevance that AFAICT seems to be overlooked here in forums), which as Finesse weapon is easy pickup for Ranged/DEX Magus that seems viable switch-hitting tactic/tool, even if Ranged is their primary goal. More broadly, I think melee Finesse Magus might find a niche with Multiclass or other Archetypes that depend on Finesse weapons, and perhaps you might like to explore those...

But yeah, core Magus doesn't seem to be about promoting melee Finesse, so max DEX isn't especially rewarded, although like I said you can still reasonably boost DEX if you want. STR is just better at melee than DEX, since even Finesse weapons are more effective using STR. THe only area where DEX is uniquely superior is Ranged, which is fairly supported (better than P1E Core Magus). So unless you are using Ranged, I say don't worry about numbers on character sheet saying max DEX or not, you can invest in DEX enough to handle those skills fine if you want (and even wear Light Armor if you prefer, same AC as Medium just with Light unique Runes instead of Fortification), but there really isn't a point to it in terms of melee (again, barring Multiclass/Archetype potential). So go with the mechanics that do what you need to do, i.e. melee, that's what the system is "telling" you to do... You don't need to derive your character identity from bypassing system paradigm.

EDIT: Anyways, that whole issue seems mostly marginal to the topic of the thread, which is Lost Omens Mwangi Expanse,
and while I wasn't quite sure of scope of product at first (regional border distinctions shifting in 2E),
Lost Omens Mwangi Expanse definitely seems worth looking forward to, giving more open ended taken on the region, finally.
Interested to see how any specific inspirations are manifested from medieval Benin and other kingdoms, but looking good so far.

Restricting the Versatile Heritages in any way for any reason would defeats the entire point of them though. The narrative justification is there, even if some of the more physical aspects of it are questionable. An Anadi can still be a vampire and, by extension, create Dhampiric kin eventually. It is no weirder than "my Leshy is part Demon."

There's no reason to suggest any of the less "Human"-like Ancestries are incapable of reaching the same genological irregularities and mutations as others.

I don't believe that Versatile Heritages never ever being limited in any ways is "the entire point of them". Having one restriction doesn't take away any of the other myriad combinations, even if you don't like that. Having some restrictions isn't any weirder than Half-Elf and Half-Orc being restricted to Humans by default. Paizo always distinguished Starfinder's "Mos Eisley" menagerie to the more restrained vibe intended for Pathfinder. That doesn't mean all Versatile Heritages should be restricted by default, but if there is specific reason the lores don't align, it's not the end of the world for Versatile Heritages in general.

As to certain combos like Tiefling (which isn't unreasonable given Fiends are not tied to Humanoids more than non-Humanoid species and AFAIK Anadi have souls as normal as Humans are), I think mechanically it's pretty clear that anybody can recognize a Tiefling or Aasimar at sight, and having different base Ancestry doesn't change that. Aasimar seems most clearly worded in that regard, but Tiefling and Dhampir also seem to have same intent if not stated as overtly:

"While an aasimar is recognizably a member of their humanoid ancestry, they always bear a few physical traits that set them apart, such as glowing eyes, a faint halo of light above their head, feathers for hair, antennae on the brow, a metallic sheen to the skin, lack of a belly button, a strangely musical voice, or a naturally pleasing floral scent. "

"Two tieflings, even siblings or twins, might not look similar at all, for the influence of fiendish lineage manifests in unique and unusual ways. These variations never make a tiefling’s appearance so strange as to obscure their humanoid ancestry, but horns, a forked tongue, vestigial wings, a tail, or a cloven hoof in place of a foot are all common and obvious signs of their heritage."

"A dhampir generally resembles a member of their non-vampire parent's ancestry, but with a ghostly pallor and eyes so light it seems they have only pinpoint pupils and no iris. All dhampirs have elongated incisors, some nearly as long as those of a true vampire. Many command grace, beauty, and charm, despite their unsettling appearance. ...mortal communities find a dhampir's sallow flesh, piercing eyes, and unnerving presence off-putting at best..."

The point being there are physical differences VS normal base Ancestry that are noticeable by normal bystanders that distinguish them as Aasimar/Tiefling/whatever in addition to base Ancestry. In P1E there was specific alt-racial ability to easily "pass as" base Ancestry, I assume that would be Ancestry Feat to do similar in P2E.

Is this just about Mwangi Expanse non-human ancestries, or is it setting product giving broad info including about native Humans ethnicites and nations who dwell is Mwangi Expanse and/or Southern Garund? It sounds like it is Mwangi Expanse-centric, but alot of those races have been associated to Southern Garund AFAIK, so not sure if this meant for Mwangi+Southern Garund asa a whole or what... Seems plausible there could be other native ethnic groups in Southern Garund besides Mwangi, even if they also extend south also...?

Is it correct an AP will be coordinated with this release? Any other announcements along with this?

...I didn't see this PAX stream and don't know where to look it up :-)

Fair.... More like: "Another weird underground race out to kill us all. Who can keep track?"

Exactly my take on it, and like the real world, most people need motivation and perceived relevance to them in order to care about tracking such distinctions.

That some people encountered Elves living underground somewhere far away from them doesn't inherently trigger that, beyond "oh huh, those Elves are weirdos huh?" (Elves themselves being pretty rare and isolationist in setting, something perhaps ignored since they are "core trope" from meta perspective) The detail that they look different might not have been transmitted... Or maybe it was but not in connection to anything else, so it's just "oh huh, another color of Elf". The detail that they are demon worshipping slavers might not have been transmitted, but could end up associated with with Elves in general and not Drow discretely (again, Elves being obscure and small population people might be prone to distrust or hold inaccurate beliefs about). Maybe Dow could be conflated with other species known to live underground that is similar from perspective of far away surface folk. Who really wants to go there anyways? So most people would lump it together as "that dark scary place with monsters".

The point being most people aren't too motivated to adhere to rigorous accuracy here... Same way media gets away with it's constant stream of "North Korea killed some person... Oh wait, they're alive, but we are totally serious journalists" bullshit, or Americans not really distinguishing between various nationalities or ethnicities that are "close enough" in their minds. Or consider the medieval myths about crazy creatures or humanoids who lived in parts of the world they had vague awareness of, but they wouldn't really know much context to make sense of any specific detail they might accurately learn. Basically, people in setting perspective do not plausibly approach their understanding of world as we players do, with every attested statblock a concrete fact we have unlimited perfect knowledge of.

Also, using creature Commonality as guide to in-world perceived knowledge does not seem something to rely on if you desire verisimillitude IMHO, it's just a very crude brush with vast majority of things being "Common". That's mostly aimed at player/GM metagame perspective (which can be very distorted by metafactors like "core status" of Elves etc) IMHO, not immersive collective consciousness in setting.

BTW, does anybody LIKE the name "Striking Spell"? I keep wanting to say "Spell Strike" which just flows better IMHO. All of the follow on Feats seems to use the term "Spellstrike" e.g. "Quickened Spellstrike" "Dispelling Spellstrike" etc., so I'm not really sure what's going on. Is consistency dead? ;-)

"Spirit Sheath" is another ability name I dislike, because "Spirit" has specific connotation re: Occult magic, while Magus is supposed to be all about Arcane. Just call it Extradimensional Sheath or something that sounds Arcane-y.

Spirit Sheath is somewhat relevant to Spell Strike/Striking Spell efficacy discussion, in that you can swap to more optimal backup weapon as free action. Having right damage type or ideal trait is usually useful and saving that action to swap weapons is legit.

It's a dice based game, 2E made "autopass plateaus" a thing of the past so dice variance is always real. So if you don't like "gambling" you probably don't like this game already. In actual fact plenty of people do like "gambling", which is why it is near univeral concept across cultures.

A good amount of the time there will be no difference in outcome despite +/-2 proficiency, and the amount of time it does make a difference can be balanced against the amount of time a weapon crit upgrades the effect. That this dynamic isn't neatly collected in a single neat one dimensional metric doesn't change that, even if such narrow focus might lend false sense of certainty. Refusing to address multifactor dynamics and bigger picture does not seem good qualification to assess good or bad system design. Asserting consumer assumptions and preferences is not game system design.

In practice I don't think that distribution will hold up. Things like Flanking, Fright etc... are too common not to come into play much of the time.

Right, and likewise on the spell side they are incentivized to Save-Target (or AC target vs low AC), coincidentally they have Feat for free Recall action to be aware of those factors. Having Focus Haste really normalizes that enhanced action economy, so they should have plenty of opportunity for 1-action debuffs and actions to gain tactical advantage. Building up tactical advantage is name of the game anyways, and Magus can work that to their advantage.

And how does the Critical Effect factor in? Assuming your numbers are accurate, you should have between a 10 and 15% chance of critting with your melee Strike, more with debuffs/buffs involved, which means that 10-15% of the time a Failure for your Spell Attack or Spell Save will upgrade to a success and so on.

Right, I think that's what significantly improves their average damage with spells/slots, I think more than a mere +2 proficiency alone would do. Not to mention missing weapon in 1st round still leaves them "holding" spell charge, so next round they can attack multiple time to trigger it, or even cast True Strike to fish for best Crit chances, leaving action(s) for Focus spell or movement etc.

With more than 1 full round of attacks, it just seems very unlikely to fail to trigger the spell effect before end of next round... If we remove weapon misses as irrelevant to spell effect (whenever it is triggered eventually), I think it's reasonable to say weapon Crits are significant portion of your hits considering Magus Rune advantage and plausible buffs/debuffs/Flanking. If ~25% of weapon HITS are crits, the total effect equals 25% of all spells being upgraded one category... That seems more impactful than a vanilla +2 proficiency atop naked d20 variance. Low level enemies being even easier to Crit probably makes "just Cantrip" combos even more viable vs them (and low level enemies are likely to be found in groups, so you can recycle Recall Knowledge info advantage).

I would guess it's more likely a Wizard ends up wasting spell slot with no effect or only partial effect, even if Magus might need a second swing to achieve that, so perhaps "reliability" is in eye of beholder. I don't think the entire viability of Magus comes down to looking only at one hypothetical weapon roll and one hypothetical spell roll, even if the ease of that comparison might feel like it grants legitimacy. Multi-round dynamics are important, and they bring plenty of other value to th table, from skills and free Recall Knowledge, to mobility and utility including via items, with Haste economy letting them aid allies as well...

Quandary wrote:

I don't think Magus needs any better spell proficiency. They already get effective bonus from bypassing MAP for Attack spells, and Melee Crits (which they can maximize with True Strike) upgrade spell chance for Crit or normal Hit or Save fail (so even if they CritSave spell they still get partial Save effect), with spell persisting until end of next turn in case 1st Strike misses. IMHO that is worth more than +2 from proficiency, and getting both would be too much. Ignoring that Monk/Champion have nothing like that mechanic, and only looking at vanilla Spell proficiency, is so distorting as to be irrelevant. That is how the Magus is supposed to fight with spells from Level 1, so fact they aren't as good as other casters for other generic spellcasting is irrelevant to their core schtick.

How are they supposed to take advantage of True Strike? And while it says it bypasses MAP, functionally you still have MAP due to stats, proficiency, and lack of item bonuses for spell attacks.

It's not really about "just one way", and I think people get caught up in one single iteration focusing on just one round /one single attack roll, when your actions change from round to round and one round can build into the next being a powerhouse.

I do think using True Strike is great when your first round melee attack missed but you still are "holding" the spell until end of next round. That might leave one action free for Focus spell or movement (not otherwise accounted for in "optimal turn schedules") or even 2nd attack for 2nd chance to trigger spell if 1st misses (still leaving 3rd action if you didn't use True Strike). Even if you don't use True Strike you have multiple chances to make attack and thus excluding all the misses (which don't expend spell) your weapon crits should make up significant amount of total hits. Those weapon crits upgrade spell effect (both Miss->Hit, and Hit->Crit) which should be rather significant in total success/damage. People compare vanilla proficiency and infer that means lower success (and higher wasting of slots), but in slightly longer time scale you have MORE chances to succeed with that spell and the crit portion of those successes should increase average spell effect more than just a vanilla proficiency boost would, along with yielding better total chances to not waste the slot with no effect. Just comparing vanilla proficiency without that is ignoring half the picture.

That's at odds with both their action economy (no spare actions for True Strike) and their general lack of spell slots (needing to spend 2 slots on each spell, with a base of only 4 or 6 slots total!) Not to mention there's a much better method for bypassing MAP, which is to just use saving-throw based spells (targeted at the enemy's low save) to begin with. The benefits are too marginal to really overturn the fundamental issue of being unlikely to hit with spell attack rolls, and needing to hit with a strike prior to even get a chance to make a spell attack roll.

I mentioned True Strike in context of NEXT ROUND after missing, and there is plenty of room to use True Strike and Attack when Spell is already cast and stored (until end of next round). But considering Magus has built in Focus Haste, I have hard time not also accounting for that in their action economy. Of course using Save spells instead of attacks is very reliable and I'm not advising against it, but that doesn't negate that MAP is ignored for Attack spells which noobody else would bother trying. You say the benefits are marginal yet never bring up or enumerate them yourself.

Certainly that might be seen as less CONSISTENT than just a proficiency boost (in narrow scale of one attack, bigger picture including more consistency in a sense), but the Class has long been associated with "crit fishing", nothing new there. I think leaning into multi-round tactics, utilizing Focus Haste, and other capabilities is how you make the most of this class. There's probably an argument that disproportionately relying on Crits means more of their damage will be "overkill", but that goes with the territory of "crit fisher". I think the class has plenty of broader capability to, from skills and free Recall Knowledge to resilience VS magic to mobility ala slide, along with potential out of combat utility using scrolls etc... That neither a Fighter or Wizard can manage as easily. A Wizard might have higher Knowledge check, but doesn't get free action to do so, so Combat Assessment is more likely to actually benefit the party in play.

Asethe wrote:

It's been clarified previously by Jason Bulmahn that you can cast a lower level spell with a higher level slot without heightening it, in cases where a spontaneous caster doesn't know the level appropriate version of that spell

Both Magus and Summoner can use staves and cast from them as long as their spell slots are at least the required level to cast the contained spells, and they know the contained spell they are trying to cast (either in spellbook, or in repetoire)

the language of Staves specifically requires you to have appropriate spellslots.

The point of what Asethe is referring to is the requirement to cast a spell is having appropriate slot free. Appropriate does not strictly correlate to "exactly the same", if larger container can hold smaller item then it can also be appropriate, for example. EDIT: Thus the distinction between "appropriate" and "uniquely appropriate", the latter singularly exlusive while the former is not. And Jason Bulmahn's affirmation that Heighten effects aren't mandatory when casting spell in higher level slot (even if most would usually prefer to Heighten when able) is in line with the less restrictive interpretation.

Also consider Standby Spell Feat wording "expending a spell slot of a sufficient level to cast the spell". "More than sufficient" is still sufficient, "sufficient" being used instead of simpler "expending a spell slot of THE [exact] spell level". Speaking in terms of "sufficient" is again in line with less restrictive reading, that higher level slots are also appropriate and (more than) sufficient for lower level spells.

Probably the strongest case for this is for Attacks spells specifically, since those are most swingy compared to 4-degree Save spells. The latter can still get partial effect on Save Success, and a Weapon Crit even can downgrade CritSave to normal Save for partial success, while even with upgrade from Weapon Crit that would still be Normal Miss=Nothing in Attack spell equivalent.

That said, i would love some clarification on their usability:

Staves:

Quote:

You can Cast a Spell from a staff only if you have that spell on your spell list, are able to cast spells of the appropriate level, and expend a number of charges from the staff equal to the spell’s level.

So, let's say at level 5, you have 2nd and 3rd level slots as Magus. So, you actually you don't have a 1st level slot and a 1st level spell from a staff is no longer something of an "appropraite level" you can cast.

AFAIK there isn't anything stopping from casting a low level spell in higher level slot (it just isn't Heightened without pre-Preparing that), so that should cover "able to cast spells of the appropriate level".

Compare to Standby Spell Feat wording "expending a spell slot of a sufficient level to cast the spell". "More than sufficient" is still sufficient, which was used instead of simpler "expending a spell slot of [exactly] the spell level". Using low level un-Heightened spell means you can spam it with even more slots (including Martial Caster), albeit giving up potential Heighten benefits that only higher level slots are sufficient for.

Yup, I like that if you miss, you don't lose the held spell until end of next turn (or if you use Striking Spell again), reducing chances of getting "nothing" out of a slot as you are "crit fishing". If you miss on 1st round, on the next you could even cast True Strike to increase chances of (Crit) Hit on next Strike, likewise increasing chances of strong result with spell.

Seems like Synthesist has benefits in tactical positioning and resilience. 1st when battlefield crowding would interfere with ally positioning/AoE casting, or when 2nd body means opening up more routes of attack compared to 1 body. 2nd is related to that, considering Master and Eidolon may each be personally weak in certain defences which can be targetted. If both hit in AoE or multi-target attack/spell, the default is the worst of the 2 effects... so Synthesist reduces vulnerabilities.

I could see design space for upgrade feat to Synthesist allowing to use your mental stats (with Eidolon's physical stats) like how Twin Eidolon works (just without the Twin part). That could possibly go along with allowing you to cast your own normal spells in Synthesist form, although perhaps that might be separate upgrade Feat.

Hard to really complain about Synthesist as Feat, being it's just 1st level. Better effects or options could be plausible as higher level Feats enhancing it, but the low level Feat itself doesn't seem a problem IMHO. Obviously, I just started looking at the Playtest like everybody else, so normal caveats apply...

I'm pretty much with Ubertron here... First the weapon proficiencies seem clearly messed up despite attempts to rationalize them, solid Expert progression across everything they get should be baseline, and given the amount of mistakes in that realm (across classes) I don't think it's a stretch to say that's just Errata. Something else like Armor Spec does seem appropriate too, or possibly 10HP/lvl.

The awkardness of forced Shield Block feels crappy for anybody who doesn't use Shield, and I think an actual Class Feat is appropriate, not just a General Feat that's not even relevant to every Warpriest. (Cloistered's own free Class Feat: Domain Initiate is something many Warpriests may want to pick up anyways, e.g. Cry of Destruction 15' cone d12/level is solid even with weaker DC). I think replacing free Shield Block with free Emblazon Armament is particularly appropriate: broadly useful for both Shield and 2H users, and key feat if you want to mix spells & weapons/shield especially with mainstay Heal/Harm. Even Warpriests who use a Shield would prefer this, since they can pick up Shield Block with General Feat while benefitting from Emblazon to their Shield + faciliating their casting while their hands are full. Right now Emblazon feels like a Feat Tax for subclass who should be all about that, and getting it for free would let Warpriests choose to use 2nd level feat for martial Archetype Feat while not missing out on Emblazon. That would distinguish them that much further from Cloistered who might use Archetypes to surpass Warpriest abilities.

A good chunk of Cleric abilities are defined by Deity: Anathema, Heal/Harm Font, Deity Spells, Domain access, Favored Weapon. Easily much more influential than a Wizard being Evocation vs Enchantment Specialist or Universalist, although even there such a niche will often be directly referenced.

I feel like having split stats like Cleric with WIS/CHA might be appropriate for Summoner and prevent direct competition with other casters, while promoting focus on buffs and utility. There could be de facto be two routes, going all in on both of those for Eidolon + Casting power, or dialing back on Casting to have strong Eidolon + strong other stats for combat/skills/saves.

In terms of power concerns of 2 action spell + Stronger-than-Animal-Companion Eidolon, maybe have some of Eidolon's power be contingent on extra Command action (or forgoing later action economy boosts) to gain bonuses... Or from other angle, have your own spellcasting be weaker unless you transfer power from Eidolon. With split stat system, that could involve substituting stat alternatively for Spell DC, or to Eidolon attack/save/HP stat. I know substitutions aren't the norm for 2E, but this might be OK as it isn't really leading to less MAD, just partially bypassing enforced increase to MAD (if that makes sense).

I feel like this thread should just be locked, since it seems like they gave up on actually answering rules questions on Twitch stream, even before COVID.

But yeah, not even linking to broader discussion doesn't seem conducive to productive rules design work or discussion here. There's also another "general" Errata reporting thread that is superfluous with the specific product Errata threads (e.g. CRB, or Bestiary, etc) which similarly tends to create opacity in what is being discussed for all involved (people don't know what's already been posted/where, more convoluted for devs to follow along, etc)

I think Piercing is a good choice, especially if you will separately get Armor Spec... Where my preference is on Chain for Crit Resistance to all physical, which wouldn't stack with Pierce Resist but it's a higher amount VS every Crit including Piercing (with Crits IMHO biggest threat esp. VS "bosses"). Piercing is commonest primary attack for "monsters" as well as Ranged/Archery, and melee weapons are diverse themselves. Slashing weapons do seem to be most broadly damaging there (as well as more prevalent for Finesse weapons), so might seem reasonable if you plan to fight alot of weapon wielders using swords, slashing polearms etc... But a good amount of those are Versatile Slash/Pierce anyways. So in general I would go with Piercing, although things are really balanced enough that it shouldn't prevent you from other choice that fits the character for flavor/thematic reasons, I don't think the mechanics "punish" such a choice too hard.

Ranger might also be good base class for something like that, assuming you are aiming for Knowledge check focused character, Monster Hunter line has great action economy getting tacked on to Hunt Prey. You probably want Master Nature to qualify for Master Monster Hunter's boost to attacks, save, AC on normal Recall Success not just Crits... But you don't actually have to use Nature if Arcane/Occult/Society (INT) is better. Given Nature (WIS) may be outside normal Skill interests for INT character, probably would work best if you already want to take an Archetype that grants free Skill proficiency upgrades (whether toNature, INT Knowledges, or other Skills you want to boost anyways). If you go Outwit the bonus to Knowledge checks means you can eventually out-do Wizards in INT Knowledges while still handling WIS Knowledges well even without huge WIS. Precision or Flurry are pretty nice for combat benefits that scale even while spending Feats on Archetypes etc.

I don't really like the "Swash has incentive to Feint, Demoralize, etc" line... Because so does the Rogue, when they can't get FF any other way, they can Feint to setup equivalent damage and get their own special effects. That also goes along with CHA being easier pickup for Rogue, that they can actually leverage more (magic feats, perhaps ideal for STR/CHA Ruffian who can neglect DEX while using spells for ranged sneak, + CON/WIS).

I think the Swashbuckler looks alot stronger when you DON'T invest in CHA at all, while it's a reasonable pickup for Rogue. Which is weird in that Swashbuckler has plenty of opportunities for CHA tie-ins, but I think avoiding that is stronger over-all for them. A Swashbuckler is incentivized to have good STR and DEX both (since they lack DEX->DMG or Medium Armor) while Rogues tends to minmax one and neglect the other, but that means Rogues are less likely to be strong in both STR and DEX skills. I think that STR/DEX binary for Rogues does allow them to more easily achieve highest CON, which undercuts Swashbuckler's advantage in HP... although with how stat boosts work (as well as max HP/level), that will tend to decrease over time/levels (to Swashbuckler's advantage).

I get that the OP was referring to proficiency progression, but I think it's unhelpful to portray them as comparable in weapons... Swashbuckler getting all martial means they do have superior selection of weaponry... Since DEX is fixed as Key Stat, they will tend to prefer Finesse weapons on the ~half of levels where DEX>STR, which reduces the discrepancy VS Rogue weapons alot (but not completely), but I see Swashbuckler's leveraging Shifting weapon to instantly swap into Finesse weapons when superior, and vice versa. Swashbuckler's profusion of freehand/2WF feats is a potential factor, but even just 1H martial is still better than Rogue (esp. including 1+ Hand weapons), and those feats can be avoided if using 2H weapons often.

Stuff like After You and Finishing Follow-Thru (free Panache) is important to assessing Swashbuckler... especially as it leads into Derring-Do (2x rolls for Style skills). [EDIT: that relates alot to Red Griffin's above points about advantage of keeping panache, i.e. starting/getting ahead lets you spend more freely while still recovering to keep ongoing benefits) Impaling Finisher and Dual Finisher is cool for 2x1 (and I believe Impaling's 2nd target doesn't need to be in normal weapons range?).

But I do tend to feel that other classes can too easily grab all of this via Multiclass (other than higher damage dice/speed scaling, which other classes' base abilities more than make up for), with not enough kept unique to base class itself... So I think they didn't "hold back" enough abilities, and/or should have granted more exclusive abilities...?

I think Arazni is cool example of new "system"'s possibilities: Despite being NE herself, she "allows" CG worshippers. Is this reflection of her old mortal alignment, and/or of a latent potential for future alignment shift within her... or just alignment-agnostic correlation of sympathies with the themes of rebellion and self-liberation? Probably/maybe all of them, reflecting Arazni's internal conflict and dislike of her self and present condition, along with similar opinion about her followers, who she probably thinks could find a better deity to worship whether they are Neutral/Evil or Chaotic/Good. But the symmetry of that situation is what ties together the relationship, although it seems rather unstable and perhaps waiting for Arazni to take the next step and change more herself.

It seems equivalent to the given example of Abberations/Aberrant bloodline, with both not inherently specifying "subtype" beyond the general type. So gaining the Undead trait (effectively Negative Healing) seems appropriate, but further traits like Vampire or Ghost would not be, as they aren't inherent to the bloodline... just as you couldn't pick any random subtype of Aberration.

I would say that Darkvision is appropriate as all Undead seem to have it except those specifically being blind.

I would say Fly/Acquatic/Amphibious are not gained, as "the creatures associated with your bloodline" seems reasonably read as "all the creatures...", and those abilities aren't universal to Undead even if specific examples exist.

The phrasing of the Resistance section is noteworthy in it's difference compared to Fly/etc. Unlike the earler section, this section is phrased re: "if creatures associated with bloodline have..." (not "the creatures"). I read that as ANY creatures, which opens door to most of not all the mentioned immunities/resistances being eligible to be designated for the 20 resistance, even though none of them are "universal". EDIT: Personally I think both sections should be Errata'd to be more explicit, "all creatures" in previous section, "any creature" in this section... The current distinction is just so un-necessarily subtle, to the point I'm not even sure if that IS the actual intent.

Honestly I would vastly PREFER to be ABLE to designate a more "universal" Undead immunity/resistance, which would have to be Poison immunity/resistance. Poison along with Death, Disease, and Paralysis is one of the Immunities that basically all Undead seem to have, even though it isn't explictly attached to the Undead trait in 2E (that being a tendency of 2E to reduce generic Type abilities in favor letting each monster do whatever is appropriate). So technically those doesn't come with the Undead trait that the Feat gives you (AFAIK). While Death/Disease/Paralysis aren't even damage types you could "resist", Poison certainly is, so it's a shame it's not on the list to be able to designate. Seems like an oversight, because if it were, Undead would certainly qualify to select it. Plenty of other creatures might also have Poison immunity/resistance, so it's not just Undead Bloodline's loss.

Hard to imagine using Twin Takedown and 4 attacks every round, between requirement for Hunt Prey, Commanding his Animal Companion, and Step/Striding to melee range of enemies or for Flanking (which you present as ubiquitous), I would expect it's fairly rare to actually get 4 attacks per round unless you're overlooking the action requirements on some of those. While he can't really use all of those every round, if he's often using most of them I would presume he isn't having to move very much if at all. Which I would say reveals some very bad tactics on part of enemies...

I mean, normal gameplay advice is to use movement to prevent enemies from using best action combos... Half-way smart enemies should be using that against him, because not even needing to Move (apparently) is what lets him contantly use his mega-blender action combos. So more mobile enemies, along with ranged enemies, will mean he has tougher action choices and can't permanently live in ideal action efficiency zone.

It's reasonable to not even Hunt Prey VS every target if they are weak anyways, and you'd rather save the action for setting up Hunt Prey VS next enemy or moving or whatever else. I mean, he has a strong build and it's powerful when it can play to it's strengths, but normal variety of combat shouldn't be that consistently generous to him. That said, if you all think his power level is making this less fun, then maybe he can try a different combat style or build.

2E shift to flat damage bonus (Rage) vs 1E's STR bonus (x1.5 2H) does open up more options.
Agile or Sweep/Backswing could be extra attractive considering Barbarian's relative lack of accuracy VS fighter.

I also like 2nd hand for throwing weapon, or just for free hand (all maneuvers, or even specific free hand feats).
Multiclass Fighter is also nice there with Dual Handed Assault if you want to wield 1H/2H weapon i.e. Bastard Sword.

Sword & Board is another usage for 2H that I like, ameliorating "glass cannon" aspect if you can manage Raise Shield action.
(multiclassing Fighter is also good there, with Reactive Shield available at 2, and Quickblock at 16)
Probably especially relevant to Giant Barb, helping with their harsher "glasscannon" tradeoff, yet still using 100% of Giant bonus.
Sword & Board also has side bonus of allowing all damage types between shield bash and versatile main weapon...
Even if you can't use oversized Shield(?) for superior Giant bonus, still probably worth using when main weapon is Resisted.

While carving wood could work, I prefer a huge block of butter to express divine creativity of Shelyn.

It seems like Innate Spells like that aren't so fundamentally different than Multiclass Sorceror slots (at least Level 1 slot, which can only cast the Level 1 Repertoire spell and nothing else). Many Innate Feats actually have choice of spell (which can only be changed via Retraining, but that's also how you can change Repertoire spells). Probably needs a FAQ to specifically affirm it or just tweak the general definition of slot, but I would bet on Innate "slots" counting as slots.

Honestly I just feel the premise of OP is significantly off of intendend game function here. A major element of 2E was making all income earning in downtime, including indirect income earning by reducing cost of crafting, to be balanced against each other. The only distinction is really availability of appropriate activities in a given locale, but that is a factor of environment not special character build per se.

In that light, I think his attempt to use Fortune-based Crit upgrade Feat for Crafting to grossly violate that general dynamic. So for that reason I am happy disallowing said Fortune-based Crafting Feat while in downtime... Which is a rule conveyed by the rules currently, even if we can say the phrasing is suboptimal and it's location is inconvenient and counterintuitive. Reality is we can complain about such things for many rules, but that doesn't negate them existing.