Quandary's page

Clothies are basically playing the same AC game as anybody else, namely the soft AC cap game. Where Light and Unarmored have same cap as Medium, only Heavy being +1 ahead for a given proficiency tier, and Casters not hugely differentiated in AC proficiency from most martials who are not "defensive". The real differentiation is in HP and Saves (and Armor Specialization Resistance for the lucky few), as well as the "secret" benefit of Medium and Heavy being Fortification Runes (Crit Negation) and not AC as such.

Unarmored does have harder time reaching it's AC cap (especially for non-DEX classes who miss a boost), but it's trivial to spend one General Feat for Light Armor Training and every DEX based Caster should consider it unless you're happy holding yourself back. Or they can aim for heavier armors and perhaps some STR to support it - in the long term you need less STR for Heavy Armor than you need DEX for Unarmored build, although long term considerations usually are less of an issue than early game considerations. That route often ends up using Class Feats (Champion/Sentinel) but especially Humans can get by fine with General Feats at least up to mid game... Although even there, I think -1 AC (vs Unarmored) at 15th level is worth getting Fortification (and Grt Fortification), even if most would be looking for the +2 proficiency boost on top of that.

So I think the confusion is in thinking they are really that different or heavily distinguished by AC value. They have different bias to armor types built in, but that is a build trade off (stat allocation vs feats).

I'm not quite sure what that Developer post is. It could be one I vaguely remember on adjacent issue, but that I don't think resolves this issue. That one was about clarifying Rage bonus damage as additional damage i.e. if it is Fire only that portion is fire damage, and it doesn't change the damage type of base weapon attack to all be Fire. But that's not really relevent here, because from the very first post the OP was assuming a base weapon attack with X slashing along with Y fire damage. The issue here is Shield Block/Hardness rules aren't directly dependent on Resistance and have their own unique wording that doesn't seem 100% clear.

I see it as Shield Block requires physical damage to trigger. But then it says it blocks (Hardness) amount of damage to you, without specifying type. If they roll 1 on physical damage, but are applying 6 Fire damage, then if you have Hardness 7 it should block all of that. If there is Weakness or further Resistance in play, it could matter how you divide that Hardness damage reduction and that itself isn't clear. But it seems to be a "global" damage reduction not per type.

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).

^ Noble goal, but unfortunately Paizo has already made clear they aren't answering public questions in a stream like they originally intended and publicized when this thread was created. Inexplicably, they don't lock this thread even when people suggest that, despite admitting they don't plan to repond to topics raised here.

It seems some of your questions have been answered by other posters, but question would be why they need be posted here, as opposed to more topically focused threads. If you can find existing threads via forum search then great, and in many cases you can find that somebody already anwered your question, or if it hasn't been discussed yet you can create new thread. And Paizo developer staff do read the rules discussions, so the extent they are interested in addresing an issue in future Errata/FAQ, it's not particularly necessary to post here as opposed to normal rules threads.

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.

That's why you have the Great Axe Barbarian Readying an Attack to motivate them not to fail.

ABP is great for this, but there isn't any special reason it should only apply for characters using throwing weapons, and doing so would be harder than doing it for everybody since total loot distribution is changed. To be clear, even using ABP you are likely going to have some weapon with better enchants than others, but those are specific enchants and every weapon can benefit from basic accuracy and damage die "runes". But that is at least something tangible in the world i.e. "look at my magic fire dagger burn bright", and not abstract numbers. While you probably want to recover your fire dagger after a fight, if you can't recover every generic dagger you threw it's no big deal if you can restock sooner or later.

Ultimately, this just seems about Returning Runes not happening to align to whatever your prexisting notion of swords & sorcery fantasy was. I think you were fighter/adventurer who had the opportunity of Returning Runes, it's fair to say that is useful/beneficial. And it happens that in P2E (or really, P1E also, but throwing weapons in general were worse then), Returning Runes are part of the assumed lore/dyanmic of the magical setting. So of course they are normalized by mechanics. But ABP does exist to make Returning not so necessary in terms of base mechanics (although it still has benefit in terms of not needing to draw new weapon, even if Quickdraw still has further advantage when you haven't yet drawn weapons or want to switch to new weapon type)

I know Emblazon Armament is option for Clerics/Multiclass.
But thankfully in P2E damage is alot more dice based compared to flat bonus based.
So even when the average damage (never mind above average) may be detrimental to your Shield,
there will still be plenty of attacks where it ends up rolling below average damage (this can happen even with Crits),
so those are the ones that are most efficient to block without eating up your Shield too much/quickly.
Which IMHO makes sense for average/lower damage to be most easily absorbed, while damage spikes are most dangerous. YMMV

But if you expect that you won't always be Blocking even when you Raised, you might want some more Reactions besides Block.

[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.

The hoops you need to jump through to get a daikyu aren't completely clear, from what I understand. Unconventional Weaponry requires the weapon to have an ancestry tag or to be common in another culture, but the daikyu doesn't have any ancestry tags, and there isn't any information about it other than its physical description, in this edition.

I honestly don't see that as problematic to using it with this Feat. It isn't a stretch to imagine that there is SOME culture SOME where where Daikyu is common. Indeed, the very essence of the Uncommon trait implies that there is some group for whom it IS common. Even if the rules don't supply us with one exact answer for that question, it isn't a stretch to consider that in all of the universe there exists one such group (since we don't actually need to care who or what the group is, for purpose of Unconventional Feat).

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").

I support developing School angle of Wizards who is THE class that cares about magic schools in the first place. Also Magus seems appropriate for School content development, as they seem heavily "based off" Wizard paradigm (just with gish added in). Somebody mentioned Feats building off of Theses, but honestly I think that is less of a priority.

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.

Also curious there aren't any rare languages.

I mean, that's a pretty major give away IMHO. Languages are just a shaky part of system if you run it RAW, although I think the structure they built up can be easily embellished if you have interest in this area. For one, I think revamping each region's language access is good place to start... To not just reflect native populations but any significant foreign influence or interaction, which isn't the same from region to region. At the same time, I think the standard 'core races' could be removed from general consideration and be made more region specific.

If you want to go deeper, I have a system that splits proficiency into spoken and written, with INT bonus letting you fill reading 1st and CHA bonus letting you fill spoken 1st (after you fill one, any proficiency from anywhere can fill the 2nd part) although an INT/CHA penalty will unavoidably reduce proficiencies. So a Wizard's tendency for increasing INT means either more written languages or fleshing out ones they already have with spoken mode. (I haven't bothered with it so far, but if a language only has spoken/written mode, it may be fair to allow anybody to grab that with any bonus proficiency)

In any case, if you have established in-character interactions to justify learning a language, that qualifies by my book. So much more work than anybody who just picks off generic qualification list with zero story rationale.

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.

Albatoonoe wrote:

Ancestry or Heritage, you think?

What would a human Samsaran be like vs. (for example) a dwarf Samsaran?

If that question makes sense, Samsarans should be a heritage.
If it doesn't make sense, Samsarans should be an ancestry.

I'm not sure if it boils down to such a dichotomy as you assume.

Leaning into a connection with Duskwalkers as OP suggested, it's easy to see Samsarans as parallel type of Duskwalkers with distinct creation/lifecycle (that defaults to their individual reincarnation as Samsarans whereas Duskwalker death allows 'birth' of new Duskwalker reincarnated from non-Duskwalker soul).

So if Samsarans were implemented as Ancestry, I could imagine them "counting as Duskwalkers" and qualifying for most Duskwalker feats... or just creating Feats that both Duskwalkers and Samsarans both qualify for. In that case, it wouldn't make sense for such Samsaran Ancestry to qualify to take Duskwalker heritage, since they already have it in a sense... And there likewise seems a reasonable case to disallow plenty of other Versatile Heritages which may not be appropriate to their nature/lifecycle.

On the other hand, they could be implemented as Heritage, plausibly with "Human only" restriction like Half-Elf/Orc. This could "count as" Duswalker, or share specific Feats with it, as above. Or, it could be handled like subtype of Duskwalker Heritage, similar to Planetouched subtypes or Elven Heritages via Elf Atavism... i.e. would use the 1st Ancestry Feat in addition to actual Duskwalker Heritage Feat. Possibly allowing for multiple distinct Feat options to qualify as Samsaran? (given this approach doesn't have room for multiple Samsaran Heritages as such)

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).

The more I think about it, the less I like quick alchemy, if I'm gonna be honest. Keep in mind that I fully understand it's main strength... It just doesn't translate well into gameplay, since it's too cost intensive, taxing on your action economy and because of these constraints, any alchemists that is bound to face a lot of encounters will spend the larger part of its reagents in Advanced Alchemy over leaving them open for a Quick Alchemy.

Honestly, I find this a weird take. Sure, it makes sense to use most reagents on prepared Advanced Alchemy (especially early on), but that doesn't negate Quick Alchemy... Any more than a caster having ability to spontaneously substitute a minority of their slots is negated if it doesn't apply to all slots. Of course there isn't a realistic advantage in having EVERY slot/usage being spontaneous, it's plausible that some usages can be predicted as generally viable, so committing to those isn't any loss. It doesn't seem a surprise to negatively judge the class when you ignore the fundamental dynamic it offers: Besides Alchemy not being subject to thematic limitations of magical essences, they also get to play the prepared vs spontaneous dichotomy from both sides: Getting volume advantage w/ prepared, and tactical flexibility of spontaneous (from full formula book, not more limited spell reportoire).

Not re: you in particular, but I also notice the implications of latest Errata being ignored or pigeon-holed, like Medium Armor being understood as only relevant to STR-Mutagenists and not DEX builds. Maybe that is the case immediately at low levels, but once Fortification is in play, everybody should want to wear it that can, including DEX Bombers etc. And abou

Overall I see them being subject to the curse of the jack of all trades, which nobody (or few) appreciate. Ironic in a way, because P2E has generally restrained class' hyper-optimization in one direction in favor of everybody being more generalist, but still the Alchemist going furthest away from role optimization doesn't yield satisfying result for many... Which is honestly very much a manner of expectations and psychology, if it's "niche" as "anti-niche" jack-of-all-trades breaking the bounds of spont/prep/thematic limits aren't really hidden. But (alot of) people want their vehicle for power fantasy to be apex powerful in clear way, and can't even understand that as one particular desire because it's so ingrained in their paradigm of the game.

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.

I think most reasonable interpretation is that Quote should be read as "You can FREELY use social feats only while in your social identity" i.e. free of risk of exposure. Otherwise Social Feats can be used in Vigilante mode, and Vigilante Feats can be used in social mode, but with risk of exposure. That is least alteration that allows all to be coherent, and is easily explained as poor choice of words or editing that didn't capture precise subtlety.

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.

Yeah, I think Paizo aimed to make Heritages less specifically tied to lore/appearances, so that question is unlikely to have clear specific answer, currently. That said, AFAIK there is only one specific example of "Cavern Elves" existing in the world of Golarion, that being Jinin in Tian Xia, so a more constructive question might be what do Jinin elves look like?

Yet AFAIK Paizo has never specifically distinguished the appearance of Jinin, while at the same time they have never specifically said "they look exactly like Kyonin elves" or Elves from Osirion or Mwangi Expanse. So far, I would say you could invent anything you want for how Jinin look, although I would say Paizo committing to a specific typical appearance would be welcomed. Personally, I like the idea of Jinin looking like Drow, which would also be a more final end to the correlation of Drow morality and their coloration.

"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.

Not sure if OP is still in this thread, but I just wanted to comment on their statement they want to avoid danger/death because they value roleplay/character development. OK we all understand that at crude level, but I think danger/death very often can be key part of roleplay and character development in a setting of heroic conflict. Characters who feel their mortality are more interesting than cartoon mary sues. If a PC does happen to actually die, that can be huge roleplay moment for all the survivors, perhaps doubting their motivations, either shifting course or redoubing their efforts despite the pain of losing a comrade. In any good novel or film, difficulties and even defeats are enjoyed as part of the drama, so why not in RPG?

I think a big part of learning curve is figuring out the little things that add up. Even unarmed casters can step up to help provide a flank for at least one round. Even simple weapons can be viable third action. Playing combat for more than just immediate effect, aiming at bigger picture tactics as a team, even if each component action isn't impressive. That doesn't mean exotic or obscure optimized tactics, it's the sort of stuff that would fit right in to action cinema, but it might be overlooked by players focusing only on top tier heroic power mechanical options. P2E cultivates an atmosphere where things aren't just string of top notch blockbusters, but your power includes a good amount of mediocre efforts, which actually democratizes things across characters and keeps the action more 'supple' IMHO. All mechanics are expected to be relevant and used, not like 3.x/P1E where Casters just ignored their weapon proficiency past 3rd level spells.

I think I'm on the same page (re: PCs not choosing which skill to use, just declaring RK and GM chooses most relevant skill), I guess the interesting part is where a PC is only good at certain skills and not others, but rolls RK because the creature overtly seems like it might fall within their skillset (yet actually isn't). I guess that is one where it's nice for PC to at least be Trained in all RK skills so they are less likely to Crit Fail, even if each skill isn't fully up to the same max skill level. Which is defacto a benefit of high INT... even if they aren't as good at WIS RK-skills as they are at INT RK-skills, they will probably have enough Trained skills to cover ALL the RK skills including WIS ones... Whereas as a high WIS character may likely NOT have spare Trained skills to cover all INT skills, and could easily CritFail if they are "tricked" into thinking a creature might fall under their WIS based RK skills. Still, the whole fun of the CritFail effects on RK is that they do come into play every so often to spice things up, so no complaints there :-)

Sounds like PDF download link is broken for now,
Did anybody who downloaded PDF see if Warpriest Trained (only) Martial Weapon Proficiency changed to normal Expert advancement?

Not to sound harsh, but I don't think this belongs in 'General Discussion' for Pathfinder.
I think it better fits in "Advice" which usually pertains to charater "builds" as you can see that subforum does focus on.
(while perhaps not "solicited advice", your topics seem to serve as "build advice if you want X type of character".)
I think posting there will better target people interested in this, while not cluttering another subforum.

I also feel that continually posting new threads for what is basically formulaic promotion of your projects
(Full Build Friday and Monster Monday) is really verging on spamming behavior, not just normal discussion in public forum.
(the Monster Monday threads at least do seem in the most appropriate location, for Homebrew content)
When you start a new thread each week, that makes it more difficult for anybody who wants to brose forum threads,
since your 2 (or more?, haven't checked) weekly threads are significant # of the threads "naturally" started each week.

It's not that I don't think this content isn't valuable for many people, but spamming threads like this doesn't seem normal forum etiquette,
the Paizo forums should not be place that people use like they would their own blog with automatic updates of every article.
Instead of new threads each week, just updating one thread for each topic (Builds/Monsters) with new post would restain the thread spam,
and if the thread is titled/framed as ongoing invitation for forum members to post their own thematic builds,
that would be even better as something inviting actual discussion and community involvement, not just spam promoting off-site link.
(which is what all these posts amount to, not actually posting the titular build/monster stats directly)

lemeres wrote:

While fury is a bit basic, it does have its advantages. It doesn't have any specific feats...

Actually, as of the APG there's Furious Vengeance.

And personally I don't find Fury boring. Most PF1 barbarians would have the Fury instinct if converted to PF2, I think, and those were fine and flavorful just with Raging....

I was glad to see that one, the design space was obviously available there to be used. Fury has plenty more room to be fleshed out in specific feats (even if it's also good as 'blank slate' for archetype builds), but eventually I'd even like more 'non-supernatural' Insticts, that just go in different direction than however Fury ends up (e.g. a more defensive one, a more tactical one etc).

I agree on your 2nd point also, if anything I find the other 'supernatural' ones boring since they seem all about reducing to specific concrete image, less feeling of open-ness as a character. Not that I'm slagging on those as such, but when people call Fury boring I think they are just saying it isn't providing that instant simplistic image that others do.

Yeah, if you are fighting lots of weapon wielding opponents, it's actually pretty solid, as well as between bonus Feat and no unique Feats you aren't worrying as much how to fit both Totem and Archetypes Feats along with any other good basic Barbarian Feats. The only other one off the top of my head might be Spirit if you want to lean into that angle of culture/world, but not particularly because it's mechanically better unless you expect Undead or Ethereal foes alot.

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?

Sure, like if there is one open space enemies might Flank from (with the potential Shoved enemy), shoving enemy there may prevent a whole lot more pain and potentially waste more enemy actions.

It can also be an effective way to "trade" action between you and your allies: Instead of your ally needing to move to attack that enemy /and others, you Shove the enemy into position so your ally now has free action to use on offense or defense.

Or just optimal positioning for you and ally, e.g. they have Reach weapon and can hit the Shoved enemy and other nearby ones from your position, so Shoving and following the enemy lets everybody be effective.

Shove combined with a Stride away could be enough to force enemy to spend 2 actions to move to melee with you again, it could also let you avoid an AoO Reaction that it has.

Anti-Grapple is a nice one.

Also not mentioned, it may not work on Level+ enemies (at least without Flanking/Debuffs/lowFort), but everybody else (who you typically can suss out, given they tend to show up in large numbers VS single high level enemy) CAN often be Shoved with Assurance, so you can use it for 3rd action that would otherwise suffer -10 MAP.

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

Pathfinder Online was always explicitly about NOT being WoW clone, above all because "themepark" development model is much more expensive. They explicitly were based on EVE Online model where emergent multiplayer dynamics was the focus of gameplay, PFO was basically intended as EVE in Swords & Sorcery drag. Anyways, Owlcat doesn't seem setup to develop MMO, and if they were, this wouldn't be place to petition them to do so.

I understand artists might not always produce according to canon, but blacking out the eyes of elves to fit Golarion norm seems like an easy fix to apply to non-conforming artwork. Just a bit disappointed that elves are set up as alien and so forth, only to casually fall back into "slender humans with pointy ears" territory, it doesn't feel like serious dedication to unique setting.

Anyways... Subsytem for dismemberment obviously is priority before guns, sorry I don't make the rules... ;-)

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.

...Haste was nice when I cast it in advance, but I always had a debilitating spell on scroll striked to my weapon instead of haste. Maybe it would have been better to put haste there, but you still run into the reality that casting haste basically kills off a whole round without getting energizing strikes going... I guess that is what the focus power is for, but I like runic impressions a lot and without a way to get 2 focus points back, I'm not sure I would prioritize haste over the ability to put a greater elemental rune on my weapon.

This reminds me of how I feel Striker's Scroll "Can only cast with Spellstrike" restriction seems too harsh. Given the Feat has global limit of one weapon/scroll at a time, and you aren't likely to trigger Energize Strikes with spells that aren't appropriate for Spellstrike, I feel like it's not too much too allow the scroll to be cast "normally" off the weapon (not using Spellstrike), which is most impactful for 2H weapon users action economy on scrolls.

One thing that incentivizes actually casting spell yourself (slot, focus, or scroll), as opposed to using Potions of Quickness (1-action if already held), is School Shroud. In the case of Haste (Transumation) it adds +30' speed for ~1.5 rounds, which could save you a further action moving (or set up Flanking etc). Also nice effect for when you really just want increased speed for a round or 2 more than Haste as such.

I love the school theme of Spell Shroud tying into the Magus' origin as Wizard style caster (only caster that emphasizes magic schools ala School Specialists). If anything, I'd like to see that expanded upon elsewhere in the class itself or Feat options.

Now I still think slide is very interesting and might make for a fun build, but there is an issue built into the magus as far as weapon selection goes, and that is there is very little feat support for doing anything other than choosing the best weapon for making single attack actions a turn.

Hmmm... Especially if Hasted (but not just, including 2nd turns after missing Spellstrike), you may enjoy chance for 2nd weapon strike (or more on 2nd turn). If you miss 1st weapon strike, an Agile weapon gives better chances to trigger Spellstrike held spell... As well as just doing "weapon full attack" well, when it's situationally optimal with or without spellcasting. A benefit of any 1H weapon with free hand is that free hand can make Agile Unarmed/Gauntlet strikes. Obviously Bastard Sword kind of gives best of both worlds (minus Reach and Versatile S/P) but needs Fighter Feats for Dual Handed Assault.

In terms of Feat support there is the Tome Feat (off hand), Arcane Fist, Bespell (+1d6 benefits more attacks not big attacks), Spirit Sheathe (free action draw 2nd 1 Bulk weapon), Spell Parry (free hand), Spell Swipe (uses Sweep weapon trait), and I think I missed some more 1H/free hand Feats. 1H weapons have by far the most Feat support, countering the "normal" inclination for single big hit weapons.

(I ruled the -DoS applied to the secondary save as well on a crit). She crit 3 of them, causing them to instantly die because they failed (->crit fail) the initial save and failed the secondary save.

This is interesting question... Not sure if Dev Team would be in favor of how you ruled it (DoS upgrade to both Saves), but perhaps it may not be as simple as saying "it doesn't apply to both". Even if that is the case it won't increase BOTH DoS, what if the first Save was NATURALLY a CritFail/CritHit due to roll/Nat1/Nat20? Should the Spellstrike DoS effect then apply to the 2nd Save? When 2nd Save is contingent on 1st CritFailing (or on CritHit if spell attack) the relation is clear, but what about spells that have 2 parallel saves?

On 2 Weapon Fighter losing Runed weapon, yeah that is vulnerability that perhaps players need to account for. I think people are pushed to Doubling Rings and think that is sufficient replacement for 2nd Runed weapon, but maybe not. Reasonably characters can afford 2nd Runed weapon, which could be different damage type/traits when "main" one isn't optimal. Perhaps a Doubling Ring for "off hand" Agile weapon should be in addition to that 2nd Runed Weapon, not replacing it. Obviously at lower levels you wouldn't have all that, but also "stepping down" to non-Runed weapon is at least OK if you get disarmed etc.

To be honest, I don't fully support these proposals.

I think "Holding the Charge" up to a minute with Concentration (or even just up to INT mod without) changes the dynamic too drastically to be a pre-buffing class, which seems something Paizo wants to avoid over all... Giving reason to not do other Exploration activities because you want to hold spell to relase with 1 action also seems boring in gameplay ("don't worry guys, my action economy will be great when combat starts" does not build immersion and atmosphere).

I think the single combined attack is misguided, first by focusing so much on Attack spells vs other currently Spellstrike eligible spells, and second because it seems premised on current version being unreliable... When that isn't really true when you look at compound chances until end of 2nd round, which considering spell upgrade from weapon crits is probably MORE reliable to not waste spell slot compared to Wizard. But fair to say, when you do depend on 2nd round of strikes to have very high chances of triggering spell, it does mean the spell effect can be DELAYED and not happen immediatley after spending actions to cast it, which is suboptimal and might feel frustrating. Given the validity of overall probabilities behind this, I don't feel the "dual roll" (weapon strike trigger to spell) needs to be changed in itself, but perhaps we could address the over-all action economy on round when you use Spellstrike but end up missing on weapon attack.

So what if Spellstrike let you split the actions of casting up? ...Reducing the casting by 1 action (to be considered "partial casting"), but you then need to spend 1 action to "release spell" on a triggering weapon strike? No net change in actions needed for casting, and no real difference if you do hit 1st weapon strike and trigger spell immediately... But if you miss on 1st weapon strike, you now have free action to use for something else... whether moving, raising shield, intimidate, or another weapon strike. Of course if you make weapon strike with last remaining action of turn, you wouldn't have action to release the spell, but it could still persist until end of next round as normal. Since this would work similarly to Spell Storing Runes, asking how they can or can't stack might be wortwhile.

That would also open the possibility to using Spellstrike with 3-action spells. One, they could be cast & delivered immediately if you have Haste up (for 2-action partial casting, weapon strike, and releasing spell). Or without Haste, you can "partially" cast it with 2 actions, make a weapon Strike despite not having actions remaining to trigger spell (or do whatever else instead of Strike), and NEXT ROUND make Strike(s) that you can trigger spell with using 1 action.

Right now if you miss one 1st attack you may not accomplish anything at all in 1st round, but you enter 2nd round "juiced up" (with "held" spell) and can be extremely effective in what you accomplish. With my above change, the 1st round gains possibilities for additional actions so that you are able to accomplish "something" (albeit a 2nd attack would have MAP), while the 2nd round isn't as strongly "super charged" since you need one action to trigger spell.

Using the above approach alone would impede triggering the Spell Strike via an AoO or Reaction. Currently, grabbing those via Archetypes seems solid build to be able to trigger Spell Strike faster & more consistently... which is a bit weird considering the Magus class doesn't provide any native AoO/Reaction. I've proposed providing those in-class, but with additional action needed to release spell, AoO/Reaction would not normally be able to trigger them... Which is fine, if they persist being "held" until end of 2nd turn, it just makes AoO/Reaction not relevant to Spellstrike, but still viable on own merit. Still, it does seem reasonable to allow spending single action in order to "Ready" a "Release Spell" along with AoO/Reaction, which would return AoO/Reactions to relevance for Spellstrike, albeit you are risking to waste the action for "Readying" a "Release Spell" if AoO/Reaction isn't triggered or misses. Considering the efficiency of getting 2nd chance for triggering Spellstrike with 0-MAP AoO before waiting for next turn, that seems a reasonable risk to take, though.

Currently Spellstrike uses what seems to be standard "MAP only escalates after both attacks" wording. The problem there is it means if you don't trigger spell on 1st weapon attack in round, but do so via attack suffering MAP, that MAP does apply to spell attack normally... Which makes Attack spells much less reliable in terms of not wasting a spell slot, where they already are inherently worse compared to 4-degree Save spells (when weapon doesn't Crit and target Save for half but Attack spell Misses for nothing). Changing this so spell attack never suffers MAP (but would still escalate MAP for later attacks) would remove that "double whammy" and put Attack spells on more equitable footing with Save spells, while still being inherently more risky. Perhaps this could be tied to Spellstrike, but I could see it just being general thing for Magus as well.

I've also considered "math fixes" to make Attack spells more attractive for Maguses, namely allowing Attack spells to use weapon proficiency instead of spell proficiency, OR Attack spells use weapon attack stat instead of casting stat. Although superficially similar with Stat seeming to have less effect than Proficiency, I think Proficiency is probably better approach, since Stat swapping may encourage people to dump casting stat in favor of resilience (DEX, CON, WIS) and solely using Attack spells instead of Save spells. I actually don't see a reason to tie that change to Spellstrike, if a Magus wants to cast them independently then why not? Regardless, stat/proficiency swap would make Attack spells relatively stronger than Save spells ON AVERAGE, albeit still riskier than 4-degree Save spells.

It occured to me that it might be weird balancing Attack spells for general usage, when their most enthusiastic audience may be Magus... But given there are other roll upgrade effects in game, Magus having one built in (that isn't 100% reliable) isn't that distorting of an effect. Magus Spellstrike Crit upgrade just makes them more likely to use Truestrike on triggering weapon strike... While a Wizard would just use True Strike directly on Attack Spell. Combining Proficiency Swap with Spellstrike crit upgrade, Magus would probably be statistically superior at spell attacks compared to Wizard, but given Magus' focus and limitations that seems reasonable, and it's probably good for SOMEBODY to especially like Attack spells (not that benefits of reliable 4-degree Save spells would stop being relevant to Magus).

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

I don't feel like I would be enthusiastic at going any deeper than that in terms of buffing up core math. Reinforcing auxiliary abilities seems where remainder of attention should go, whether casting or weapon related Feats or baseline abilities, or other useful abilities... Recall Knowledge being one area, and the Raise Tome Feat seems like it could be worthwhile even if I don't fully "feel it" right now in it's current state (I'm not even sure if it's intended to work like a Shield that would allow Shield Block, or not). Reactions/AoOs seem fair game to have at least via Feat (which also helps Spellstrike).

Personally I felt that tying into Specialty Schools feels appropriate for Magus, developing it's specifically "Wizard" identity further... I don't know if that should be separate baseline ability, Feat(s), or possibly tied into Synthesis... Having each Synthesis be related to Spell School seems interesting angle. Doing something with Familiar also seems a nice gesture to Wizard heritage, probably being a Feat (although perhaps could be a Synthesis in parallel to School based ones?).

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.

Yup. Alot of the feedback here goes for the whole game, but is extra critical at low levels just because everything is going to be more swingy there, with big dice weapons being disproportionately brutal and PCs more likely to not have 100% filled out their Armor DEX cap yet. Extreme is the 50/50 you live/they live mega-grinder that should rarely if ever be used, but even the lower difficulties can go south quick at low level, so don't aim to use the tougher difficulties as much, and aim to fill them with lower level creatures so any "lucky" crits VS PCs will be less dangerous. Also, the more creatures per encounter, the more players can learn P2E tactics IMHO.

And yeah, Shields can be a great idea, especially on Barbs (and especially on Giant Barbs). 3.x/P1E Barbs didn't tend to use Shields, but not really because it didn't fit the Viking Berserker trope, more just because Rage boosted STR and 2H weapons was how you got the most out of STR. The thing about P2E Barbs is Rage is just a flat bonus that applies equally to 1H weapon. Getting that +2 AC (or +1 vs normal) with Resistance, atop your Temp HP and you're alot more resilient while still doing serious damage. That's not the only way to play, but if you are having trouble, I think it's a prudent one until you feel "on top" of the rules system

Angel Hunter D wrote:

I dunno, without Medium armor I think the Magus would be too squishy.

They'd be more DEX encouraged, but a Chain Shirt + 16 DEX is max AC.

Taking away universal Medium Armor makes max DEX builds squishier too, because Fortification Runes are exclusive to Medium and Heavy Armor. Light Armor is just not absolutely attached to high DEX Ranged/Finesse builds, if you have heavier proficiency it will generally be preferrable to wear it, at least by mid-levels where Fortification is available (and where STR requirement to wear it without penalty shouldn't be too hard, esp. with Mithril also available around same level for Heavy Armor). Armor Spec is also another reason why Med/Heavy can be preferred to Light even for high DEX builds, not that Magus normally gets that ability.

Even Shadow Rune can be applied to both Light and Medium so doesn't conflict with getting Fortification (with Medium Armor), only Invisibility Runes seem to be Light-only AFAIK. I don't want to discount the value anybody might see in Invisibility Runes, but it is more of specific niche VS general defensive resilience of Fortification.

^ I like it... I see Spirit Sheath as similarly relevant (if just one weapon instead of the golf bag), of course with free action Drawing Weapon in that case... So not just using Spirit Sheath to draw weapon when you have none in hand, but using it SWITCH from weapon in hand to new optimal weapon at no action cost... Both the weapon traits as well as attached Striker's Scroll spell having own situational advantages.

Which reminds me, seems like Spell Storing is pretty solid Rune for Magus. Limited to 3rd level and lower, but it doesn't even require slots so can be powered by scrolls. Doesn't seem compatible with Spellstrike since that requires casting BEFORE the weapon strike, but even without possible effect tier upgrade from weapon crit, even just partial effects on Save seem decent value if you can do it for 1 action despite normally being 2 action spell casting. Spell Storing also seems efficient way to trigger Energize Strikes (ends up being 2 actions total, 1 for activating Spell Storing, and 1 for Energize).

1) the lighter armors are great for archer/finesse builds with easier STR requirement and less Bulk.
2) anybody boosting DEX at all can easily equal Bulwark, and later exceed, but not limited to only damage Saves.
3) (any) plate is limited to armor spec resistance/slashing, which isn't the most common damage type for monsters.
i consider composite resistance/piercing a more widely relevant type, both for melee monsters and archery and some melee weapons.
if a heavy chain were available, it would be attractive as resistance vs ALL physical type crits (spikey damage less healable).
(you can use armored skirt on medium chain mail to gain 2 more armor spec resistance, but same ac cap as medium, 1 lower than heavy)

So I view Heavy Plate (Bulwark) as really just temporarily advantageous, and bandaid for those with no DEX. If you are using mental stats for casting stat or archetype requirement that can be crucial, but most martials will be able to boost DEX at least moderately to start, and reach 16+ DEX at least by 10th (and many might prefer e.g. +2 to all Reflex as soon as they have 14 DEX vs +3 only to damage saves).

Note there is archetypes (sentinel) whose feats further boost bulwark, increasing it's value to +4 and applying vs all saves, but it still isn't better than what you can do with DEX, and uses feats.